To contact us Click HERE
Yesterday's unsurprising announcement that the Supreme Court will review ObamaCare next June brought out a tidal wave of punditry.
I heard everything from predictions that the law, or at least the mandatory health insurance purchase component, will be rejected on a 5-4 vote, to Uwe Reinhardt, Princeton's health care so-called expert, claiming that it won't even matter what happens to the mandate. Reinhardt's comments were especially odd, since so much effort was expended by Democrats to use the mandate to fulfill Congressional attempts, amid a lot of outright falsehoods, to have the CBO score the bill, which will add 30 million people to the insured roles, as actually reducing US health care expenses.
On a general note, it feels as if one is living through a court decision like Dred Scott, Brown, Roe, or Marbury. One thing on which everyone can agree is that this is likely the acid, final test for our nation of the unfortunately vaguely-worded commerce clause.
It was disappointing to read Appellate Judge Silber's naive statement that the courts have to presume that Congress passes only Constitutional laws.
Is that not a basis for term limits on the federal bench, all by itself?
On Bret Baier's Fox News program, conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer described the four parts on which the Supreme Court will rule on the law:
- the Constitutionality of the mandate under the Commerce clause
- severability of the mandate from the remainder of the law
- standing of those bringing suit a priori to paying the tax for failing to purchase coverage
- Medicare funding related to the bill
Thus, several combinations of outcomes could occur from rulings on the various elements under consideration.
Justice Kagan is not recusing herself, although it is clear she was involved in support of the law as Solicitor General for the administration. However, one has to pragmatically ask if it would really do any good to have a 4-4 tie on these components. Or if the arm-wrestling over who would be a replacement ninth Justice would do the nation any good, either.
I'm a big proponent of things happening for a reason, and people receiving the justice they deserve. On that basis, if Kagan's participation results in the key rulings of the Commerce clause/mandate being upheld, and the it being severable anyway, so be it. Americans will reap what they sowed by electing the president and Congress that passed this monstrosity.
But, back to summer of 2012.
Some hold that if the mandate fails, and it isn't severable, so the law is unconstitutional, then Wonderboy can run away from the whole issue and claim no harm was done.
That's ridiculous on its face. As Krauthammer noted on Baier's program last night, Obama did nothing else of import for the past three years but pass ObamaCare and waste nearly a trillion dollars on useless 'stimulus' spending. Nobody's going to forget he spent so much time and capital on this law.
Will he, if so defeated by the court, then turn to run against the GOP House and the Supreme Court? Perhaps, but I don't think that will cut any ice with the independents who elected him.
The more interesting question is how a Supreme Court affirmation of the first two points will affect the November election. I suspect it will galvanize support for the COP presidential candidate and its Senate candidates, in hopes of overturning the whole mess.
The second-order issue then becomes how this plays out if Romney, the original architect of the ObamaCare approach in Massachusetts, is nominated by the GOP? Won't he appear hypocritical for railing against the Court and a plan he basically signed into law as a state governor?
However those mechanics play out, I think it's more instructive to see this as perhaps the final test of the Commerce clause as capable of completely gutting the Constitution which our Founders intended. If the Supreme Court greenlights this last firewall against Congress essentially being given the right to pass any law as Constitutional because the Commerce clause is omnipotent, we will wake up the next day to a different America. And the only way the prior one will be restored will be via a Constitutional amendment specifically altering the Commerce clause to remove its elasticity and overturn decades of bad law underpinning its misuse.
It could well be that we have to endure more liberal attacks on the Constitution, and perhaps another four or more years, in order to build sufficient support for a broadscale, Constitutionally-based roll back of what has been a 110 year battle to undermine the deliberately-minimal federal powers originally provided in the Constitution.
However, at this particular point in our nation's history, our economic position won't sustain the ramifications of a liberal Democratic victory on ObamaCare by the Supreme Court.
31 Aralık 2012 Pazartesi
Regarding Newt Gingrich's Freddie Mac Consulting
To contact us Click HERE
I caught Newt on Greta Van Sustern's Fox News program last night defending his consulting firm's $1.6MM from Freddie Mac. According to Gingrich, he didn't lobby members of Congress. Rather, he and his firm allegedly 'provided ideas and solutions' to problems posed by Freddie's management. Elsewhere, I believe in the Wall Street Journal, it was reported that one of those 'problems' was how to posture Fannie to conservatives in order to curry favor with them and avoid constraints, if not wholesale destruction.
My problem with Newt's consulting in this matter was that it's inconceivable that he would have needed all the billable hours required to amount to $1.6MM to tell Freddie's management they were pissing up a rope, and that there was no way of doing what they envisioned.
That conservatives would never see a benefit from a poorly-regulated, vote- and protection-buying bonus machine which crowded out saner, more explicitly risk-priced alternatives for securitizing US residential mortgages.
Sadly, in response to Greta, Newt began to place great emphasis on the pricing levels of his consultancy work, insisting they were below-average to average among other competitors.
But that's hardly the point. The point is a conservative of Gingrich's stripe should never have had that much to offer Freddie. And Newt should have had the good sense, as a former Speaker of the House, to understand how it would look, in retrospect, when someone discovered how much his firm earned from essentially consorting with the enemy.
This is more about a serious lapse in political judgement, which seems to be Newt's salient liability as a candidate.
My problem with Newt's consulting in this matter was that it's inconceivable that he would have needed all the billable hours required to amount to $1.6MM to tell Freddie's management they were pissing up a rope, and that there was no way of doing what they envisioned.
That conservatives would never see a benefit from a poorly-regulated, vote- and protection-buying bonus machine which crowded out saner, more explicitly risk-priced alternatives for securitizing US residential mortgages.
Sadly, in response to Greta, Newt began to place great emphasis on the pricing levels of his consultancy work, insisting they were below-average to average among other competitors.
But that's hardly the point. The point is a conservative of Gingrich's stripe should never have had that much to offer Freddie. And Newt should have had the good sense, as a former Speaker of the House, to understand how it would look, in retrospect, when someone discovered how much his firm earned from essentially consorting with the enemy.
This is more about a serious lapse in political judgement, which seems to be Newt's salient liability as a candidate.
Rick Perry's Part-Time Congress Concept
To contact us Click HERE
I find Rick Perry's 'part-time Congress' idea to be a little too goofy to take seriously.
Texas isn't the United States, doesn't have a standing army, navy or air force, or embassies abroad. Back in the early 1800s, before the US was a world power, and communications were poor, a part-time legislature, both at the state and federal levels, was basically just reality.
But once America came into the 1900s, and the government, post-Civil War, had, for good or bad, Constitutionally or not, swollen in size and responsibility, it became unrealistic for Congress to only serve part of every year or term.
But one idea Perry has echoes my own- cut Congressional staffs. I don't know what details he proposed- probably none, knowing Perry.
If I'm not mistaken, I think it was even one of my 10 things I'd do to reform government.
But I believe I advocated only two aides per Representative or Senator. And no compensating budget to hire temps or consultants.
I want members of Congress themselves writing bills- not their hired, degree-heavy, detail-crazy, bribable staffs.
That's what I want...a lean Congress without staffs and coddlers, full of members who actually do all the work themselves.
Then, as the subheading of this blog suggests, we'll be a bit safer because those 435 elected members simply won't have the time and ability to write so much intrusive legislation that affects the rest of us and gives them such ongoing power.
Texas isn't the United States, doesn't have a standing army, navy or air force, or embassies abroad. Back in the early 1800s, before the US was a world power, and communications were poor, a part-time legislature, both at the state and federal levels, was basically just reality.
But once America came into the 1900s, and the government, post-Civil War, had, for good or bad, Constitutionally or not, swollen in size and responsibility, it became unrealistic for Congress to only serve part of every year or term.
But one idea Perry has echoes my own- cut Congressional staffs. I don't know what details he proposed- probably none, knowing Perry.
If I'm not mistaken, I think it was even one of my 10 things I'd do to reform government.
But I believe I advocated only two aides per Representative or Senator. And no compensating budget to hire temps or consultants.
I want members of Congress themselves writing bills- not their hired, degree-heavy, detail-crazy, bribable staffs.
That's what I want...a lean Congress without staffs and coddlers, full of members who actually do all the work themselves.
Then, as the subheading of this blog suggests, we'll be a bit safer because those 435 elected members simply won't have the time and ability to write so much intrusive legislation that affects the rest of us and gives them such ongoing power.
MF Global's Corzine Continues To Get A Pass From Liberal Media
To contact us Click HERE
The tab for missing, improperly applied customer funds at MF Global has now risen to $1.2B, twice what was reported during the first week after the firm declared bankruptcy.
Yet, as Fox News' Charles Krauthammer observed, the liberal media continues to turn a blind eye to the potentially-criminal actions of former Goldman Sachs co-head, US Senator and New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine.
Even CFTC chairman Gary Gensler, who recused himself on the case, has stated publicly that it looks very likely that Corzine committed criminal acts.
Yet the liberal Democrat, former Senator and Governor, is largely ignored by the New York Times, CNN and MSNBC.
Had Corzine been a Republican, you can bet he'd have been roasted, pilloried and tried in the media constantly as a criminal 1%-er.
There's your media double standard. Only, because the liberals are silent on this one, it's harder to see it for what it is.
Yet, as Fox News' Charles Krauthammer observed, the liberal media continues to turn a blind eye to the potentially-criminal actions of former Goldman Sachs co-head, US Senator and New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine.
Even CFTC chairman Gary Gensler, who recused himself on the case, has stated publicly that it looks very likely that Corzine committed criminal acts.
Yet the liberal Democrat, former Senator and Governor, is largely ignored by the New York Times, CNN and MSNBC.
Had Corzine been a Republican, you can bet he'd have been roasted, pilloried and tried in the media constantly as a criminal 1%-er.
There's your media double standard. Only, because the liberals are silent on this one, it's harder to see it for what it is.
Where There's Smoke.....
To contact us Click HERE
When I first heard reports of the latest woman to accuse Herman Cain of having a sexual relationship, it seemed to long and involved to be true. The woman alleged a 13-year liaison, including sexual encounters.
Then, only hours later, on a Fox News program, it was disclosed that, although the woman was said to have money problems, she did have text messages from Cain, and a copy of one of his books inscribed by him to her personally. Cain admitted knowing the woman for that time period, but categorically insisted there was no 'relationship.'
I thought perhaps he mentored her platonically, and she took a different view of his kindnesses.
Then I heard that she had some 61 text messages from Cain, coming, to cite Sean Hannity, either 'at all hours' or 'at early hours in the morning,' suggesting a clandestine, inappropriate involvement.
Stepping back, you have to wonder by now just what is it about Herman Cain that draws these allegations from multiple women?
In a field of 7-8 other candidates, nobody else has had these issues. We all know about Gingrich's infidelities, so that's different. And you'd think, if Newt had stepped out on his latest wife, we'd have heard about that muy pronto.
Guys like Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman would seem likely candidates for similar allegations, but nothing has surfaced. Not a peep. Nothing for Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, either.
So just going by the statistics, you have to wonder why only one candidate out of a group of 8 or so has received all the public allegations of prior marital infidelities?
It may seem unfair, but it does give one pause. And make you reconsider Cain as a candidate. His fumbling of the initial accusations, for which he had over a week to consider his response, was unimpressive.
But, now, this 13-year thing, with saved text messages, just seems so odd. It's like he attracts this sort of thing, or has exercised poor judgement in the past in his associations with women.
Whichever it is, whether fair or not, it's almost certainly derailed his candidacy.
Then, only hours later, on a Fox News program, it was disclosed that, although the woman was said to have money problems, she did have text messages from Cain, and a copy of one of his books inscribed by him to her personally. Cain admitted knowing the woman for that time period, but categorically insisted there was no 'relationship.'
I thought perhaps he mentored her platonically, and she took a different view of his kindnesses.
Then I heard that she had some 61 text messages from Cain, coming, to cite Sean Hannity, either 'at all hours' or 'at early hours in the morning,' suggesting a clandestine, inappropriate involvement.
Stepping back, you have to wonder by now just what is it about Herman Cain that draws these allegations from multiple women?
In a field of 7-8 other candidates, nobody else has had these issues. We all know about Gingrich's infidelities, so that's different. And you'd think, if Newt had stepped out on his latest wife, we'd have heard about that muy pronto.
Guys like Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman would seem likely candidates for similar allegations, but nothing has surfaced. Not a peep. Nothing for Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, either.
So just going by the statistics, you have to wonder why only one candidate out of a group of 8 or so has received all the public allegations of prior marital infidelities?
It may seem unfair, but it does give one pause. And make you reconsider Cain as a candidate. His fumbling of the initial accusations, for which he had over a week to consider his response, was unimpressive.
But, now, this 13-year thing, with saved text messages, just seems so odd. It's like he attracts this sort of thing, or has exercised poor judgement in the past in his associations with women.
Whichever it is, whether fair or not, it's almost certainly derailed his candidacy.
27 Aralık 2012 Perşembe
Poll Watch: CNN/ORC Survey on Benghazi
To contact us Click HERE
CNN/ORC Poll on Benghazi
As you may know, in September, terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Libya and killed the U.S. ambassador to that country and three other U.S. citizens. Based on what you have read or heard, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the Obama administration has handled this matter in the past few months?
Among Registered Voters
As you may know, in September, terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Libya and killed the U.S. ambassador to that country and three other U.S. citizens. Based on what you have read or heard, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the Obama administration has handled this matter in the past few months?
Among Registered Voters
- Satisfied 42%
- Dissatisfied 51%
- Satisfied 33%
- Dissatisfied 58%
- Satisfied 43%
- Dissatisfied 54%
- Those statements were an attempt by the Obama administration to intentionally mislead the American public about that attack 42%
- Those statements reflected what the Obama administration believed at the time had occurred based on the unclassified information available 55%
- Those statements were an attempt by the Obama administration to intentionally mislead the American public about that attack 48%
- Those statements reflected what the Obama administration believed at the time had occurred based on the unclassified information available 48%
- Those statements were an attempt by the Obama administration to intentionally mislead the American public about that attack 31%
- Those statements reflected what the Obama administration believed at the time had occurred based on the unclassified information available 63%
Poll Watch: MassINC Massachusetts 2013 Senatorial Special Election Survey
To contact us Click HERE
WBUR/MassINC Polling Group Massachusetts 2013 Senate Special Election Poll
- Scott Brown (R) 47%
- Deval Patrick (D) 40%
- Scott Brown (R) 51%
- Martha Coakley (D) 36%
- Scott Brown (R) 48%
- Ed Markey (D) 30%
- Scott Brown (R) 47%
- Mike Capuano (D) 28%
- Scott Brown (R) 49%
- Marty Meehan (D) 30%
- Scott Brown (R) 51%
- Steve Lynch (D) 24%
- Deval Patrick 60% / 26% {+34%}
- Scott Brown 58% / 28% {+30%}
- Martha Coakley 48% / 27% {+21%}
- Ed Markey 24% / 12% {+12%}
- Steve Lynch 24% / 12% {+12%}
- Mike Capuano 23% / 11% {+12%}
- Vicki Kennedy 31% / 20% {+11%}
- Marty Meehan 21% / 12% {+9%}
Poll Watch: PPP/Daily Kos/SEIU (D) Survey on Gun Control
To contact us Click HERE
PPP/Daily Kos/SEIU (D) Poll on Gun Control
Would you support or oppose requiring a criminal background check before any purchase of a gun?
Would you support or oppose requiring a criminal background check before any purchase of a gun?
- Support 92%
- Oppose 6%
- Support 63%
- Oppose 28%
- Support 63%
- Oppose 32%
- Support 69%
- Oppose 26%
- Support 76%
- Oppose 19%
- Support 94%
- Oppose 5%
- Support 64%
- Oppose 31%
- They are necessary 18%
- They are not 76%
- More interested 22%
- Less interested 30%
- No change 47%
- More widespread gun ownership 32%
- Tighter restrictions on gun ownership 48%
- They are a necessary check on tyranny 39%
- They are not 40%
Poll Watch: Harper (R) 2016 Republican Presidential Primary Survey
To contact us Click HERE
Harper Polling (R) 2016 GOP Presidential Primary Poll
Inside the numbers:
- Marco Rubio 34%
- Chris Christie 18%
- Condoleezza Rice 14%
- Rand Paul 8%
- Allen West 5%
- Scott Brown 3%
- Undecided 18%
Inside the numbers:
Rubio is strongest in the South and West. In the Northeast, he and Christie run virtually tied at 29-27%. The Midwest may ultimately be the harder nut to crack for Rubio. His working class background may be his strongest connection to the industrial Midwest.
The Chris Christie primary voter appears to lean more toward the middle. Along with Condi Rice, his voters are more likely to support exceptions to the no-new-taxes pledge and they believe that compromise is better for the country. They are less likely to watch Fox News and support TEA party goals.
Allen West and Rand Paul voters in a hypothetical 2016 primary are the strongest supporters of the no-new-taxes pledge at 62% and 60%, respectively. Chris Christie and Condi Rice voters are the most open to exceptions at 44% and 40%, respectively.
Speaking of the TEA party. It is the foundation of Rubio’s support. Approaching half of all TEA supporters (43%) are voting for him.
Rice and Scott Brown are the only candidates who do better among women than men.
Poll Watch: Rasmussen (R) Survey on Gun Control
To contact us Click HERE
Rasmussen (R) Poll on Gun Control
Should there be a ban on the purchase of semi-automatic and assault type weapons?
Inside the numbers:
Should there be a ban on the purchase of semi-automatic and assault type weapons?
- Yes 55%
- No 36%
Inside the numbers:
Most women favor a ban on the sale of semi-automatic and assault-type weapons. Men are evenly divided.
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Democrats and 52% of those not affiliated with either major party support a ban; 59% of Republicans do not.
Forty-three percent (43%) of those who have a gun in the family favor a ban on semi-automatic and assault-type weapons, compared to 69% of those in non-gun owning families.
20 Aralık 2012 Perşembe
review of Paul Collier's "The Bottom Billion"
To contact us Click HERE
Paul Collier's The Bottom Billion is an excellent book-- a must-read for those interested in international poverty.
Collier opens by noting that international poverty used to be about 1 billion people in developed countries, in contrast to 4 billion in less-developed countries. (This terminology was an update from "1st world" and "3rd world".) Now, we have 5 billion people in developING countries and 1 billion in impoverished and stagnant countries "less-developed". The issue is not so much their lack of development, since poverty is not inherently a trap. (If it were, we'd all be poor, for all of history!) The larger issue is that they're stuck.
Previous efforts have centered on "biz and buzz"-- the bureaucracy of professionals trying to help the poor in these (largely African) countries and the rock stars who get involved at various levels. Collier appreciates the good intentions and the herculean efforts-- although those are in concert with naivete and graft. But he says that we're missing it.
The biggest value-added: Collier discusses four "traps" and the data on their impact: 1.) "conflict": war and civil war; 2.) an abundance of natural resources; 3.) being land-locked (especially with bad neighbors); and 4.) bad government.
A little more detail on 1 and 2: "Conflict" has cause and effect with poverty-- and is connected to resources, as those in power (or those seeking power and wealth) use force to extract wealth from the country's resources. As such, an abundance of natural resources is a very mixed bag. They should be helpful, on paper-- but in practice, it often plays out as a curse rather than a blessing. (By analogy, think about individuals who are talented, beautiful, or really intelligent-- and how that often doesn't play out so well.)
Economists focus on #4 a lot and at least allude to #2. We certainly know about #1's importance, but it's largely outside our field. #3 was novel to me, but probably not to those with a little more expertise in the field.
Collier points to the inefficacy of foreign aid, at least of the traditional sort, in practice. (But he's not ready to give up on the possibility of it being effective!) And he notes the importance of economic growth, which typically benefits most people, including the poor.
His RX's: 1.) Target aid to the best governments or make it conditional on policy reforms. (This is harsh in a way, but sets the best incentives for improving. On paper, we can help dictators, but in practice, it won't work that way.) 2.) Give aid post-conflict, but not too soon: the data on "too soon" indicates that it promotes the re-establishment of conflict. 3.) Give aid to countries without as many resources. (For those with a lot of resources, that's not what they need!). 4.) Promote trade and access to coasts/ports. 5.) Finally, he even sees military intervention as an ethical and practical possibility (but overstates both-- as they would play out in practice!).
An easy read with a ton of great material on international poverty. If that's a topic of interest, you need this book!
Collier opens by noting that international poverty used to be about 1 billion people in developed countries, in contrast to 4 billion in less-developed countries. (This terminology was an update from "1st world" and "3rd world".) Now, we have 5 billion people in developING countries and 1 billion in impoverished and stagnant countries "less-developed". The issue is not so much their lack of development, since poverty is not inherently a trap. (If it were, we'd all be poor, for all of history!) The larger issue is that they're stuck.
Previous efforts have centered on "biz and buzz"-- the bureaucracy of professionals trying to help the poor in these (largely African) countries and the rock stars who get involved at various levels. Collier appreciates the good intentions and the herculean efforts-- although those are in concert with naivete and graft. But he says that we're missing it.
The biggest value-added: Collier discusses four "traps" and the data on their impact: 1.) "conflict": war and civil war; 2.) an abundance of natural resources; 3.) being land-locked (especially with bad neighbors); and 4.) bad government.
A little more detail on 1 and 2: "Conflict" has cause and effect with poverty-- and is connected to resources, as those in power (or those seeking power and wealth) use force to extract wealth from the country's resources. As such, an abundance of natural resources is a very mixed bag. They should be helpful, on paper-- but in practice, it often plays out as a curse rather than a blessing. (By analogy, think about individuals who are talented, beautiful, or really intelligent-- and how that often doesn't play out so well.)
Economists focus on #4 a lot and at least allude to #2. We certainly know about #1's importance, but it's largely outside our field. #3 was novel to me, but probably not to those with a little more expertise in the field.
Collier points to the inefficacy of foreign aid, at least of the traditional sort, in practice. (But he's not ready to give up on the possibility of it being effective!) And he notes the importance of economic growth, which typically benefits most people, including the poor.
His RX's: 1.) Target aid to the best governments or make it conditional on policy reforms. (This is harsh in a way, but sets the best incentives for improving. On paper, we can help dictators, but in practice, it won't work that way.) 2.) Give aid post-conflict, but not too soon: the data on "too soon" indicates that it promotes the re-establishment of conflict. 3.) Give aid to countries without as many resources. (For those with a lot of resources, that's not what they need!). 4.) Promote trade and access to coasts/ports. 5.) Finally, he even sees military intervention as an ethical and practical possibility (but overstates both-- as they would play out in practice!).
An easy read with a ton of great material on international poverty. If that's a topic of interest, you need this book!
Ambrose's "Undaunted Courage"
To contact us Click HERE
This summer, I enjoyed another book from Stephen Ambrose. Undaunted Courage was a terrific read, especially as we were traveling out west this summer, through many of the lands he was describing. As is usual with Ambrose, it was an easy read, thorough but not dense, and a ton of interesting stuff to learn.
Some of the nuggets:
It's noteworthy that Jefferson wanted the new land to be divided into new states, rather than colonies of the new country. I had never thought of that previously, but that was a novel decision.
Likewise, I didn't know that it was Lewis who pushed and formally proposed a co-command with Clark-- and led the expedition in that manner, even though it was not officially approved by Congress. The idea was really good, given the men involved. But it was not intuitively obvious and met with resistance.
It's interesting that Jefferson feared (and generally argued against) a strong central government-- most notably, with the "separation of church and state". In such cases, he was not necessarily opposed to a given policy, but rather, the idea that it would be implemented at the federal (vs. state) level. With the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis/Clark expedition, Jefferson violated his norms to pursue larger goals.
As in Band of Brothers, Ambrose depicts people who engage in a lot of immoral behavior, particularly in the realms of drinking and sexual ethics. (At one point, Ambrose notes that alcohol was the most important compensation on the trip!) We're often told that the old days, in America, were much more moral. But from the drinking and debauchery in post-colonial America (e.g., p. 15) to the antics in World War II of our young soldiers, it is difficult to imagine that as anything but a false remembrance of times past.
Sexual immorality among the Indians was roughly equivalent, but often driven by different if not higher motives. Many of the tribes traded their wives freely-- and really interesting, they wanted their wives to sleep with the white men since they were seen as magical. These Indians believed that the magic could be communicated/spread through sex. Instead, it was venereal diseases that got spread! (On p. 303 he says there is a debate over whether syphilis started with the Indians or the Americans.)
Ambrose notes what slavery did to the character of whites, particularly the children of slave-owners (p. 18-21). Speaking of bad public policy: Ambrose's treatment of the Whiskey Rebellion (p. 23-24) reminded me of King Solomon's unjust tax/spend policies, redistributing monies from one part of the country to another. It is an underemphasized part of American (economic) history-- that politicians often chose policy solutions which benefited one region over another.
Ambrose makes an interesting point that government had to be limited in the old days (p. 39) given the limited technology and ability to communicate, given the vast amount of land in play. More broadly, he notes that "Since the birth of civilization, there had been almost no changes in commerce or transportation...the Americans of 1801 had more gadgets, better weapons, a superior knowledge of geography, and other advantages over the ancients, but they could not move goods or themselves or information by land or water any faster than had the Greeks and Romans." Wow!
Finally, I was amazed at Lewis' pre-expedition life-- and his really close, father/son-like relationship with Jefferson, as his right-hand man and fellow bachelor roommate in the White House. And I was shocked to learn about Lewis' sad post-expedition life. he was unable to discipline himself to put the journals in publishable form. And he repeatedly tried to commit suicide before succeeding just three years after his return.
His suicide and especially his failure to get the journals published hurt his reputation and limited the now-amazing level of praise for their exploits (p. 526-531). It was nearly a century afterwards that scholars began to emphasize the importance of the famous expedition that we now take for granted, historically.
Some of the nuggets:
It's noteworthy that Jefferson wanted the new land to be divided into new states, rather than colonies of the new country. I had never thought of that previously, but that was a novel decision.
Likewise, I didn't know that it was Lewis who pushed and formally proposed a co-command with Clark-- and led the expedition in that manner, even though it was not officially approved by Congress. The idea was really good, given the men involved. But it was not intuitively obvious and met with resistance.
It's interesting that Jefferson feared (and generally argued against) a strong central government-- most notably, with the "separation of church and state". In such cases, he was not necessarily opposed to a given policy, but rather, the idea that it would be implemented at the federal (vs. state) level. With the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis/Clark expedition, Jefferson violated his norms to pursue larger goals.
As in Band of Brothers, Ambrose depicts people who engage in a lot of immoral behavior, particularly in the realms of drinking and sexual ethics. (At one point, Ambrose notes that alcohol was the most important compensation on the trip!) We're often told that the old days, in America, were much more moral. But from the drinking and debauchery in post-colonial America (e.g., p. 15) to the antics in World War II of our young soldiers, it is difficult to imagine that as anything but a false remembrance of times past.
Sexual immorality among the Indians was roughly equivalent, but often driven by different if not higher motives. Many of the tribes traded their wives freely-- and really interesting, they wanted their wives to sleep with the white men since they were seen as magical. These Indians believed that the magic could be communicated/spread through sex. Instead, it was venereal diseases that got spread! (On p. 303 he says there is a debate over whether syphilis started with the Indians or the Americans.)
Ambrose notes what slavery did to the character of whites, particularly the children of slave-owners (p. 18-21). Speaking of bad public policy: Ambrose's treatment of the Whiskey Rebellion (p. 23-24) reminded me of King Solomon's unjust tax/spend policies, redistributing monies from one part of the country to another. It is an underemphasized part of American (economic) history-- that politicians often chose policy solutions which benefited one region over another.
Ambrose makes an interesting point that government had to be limited in the old days (p. 39) given the limited technology and ability to communicate, given the vast amount of land in play. More broadly, he notes that "Since the birth of civilization, there had been almost no changes in commerce or transportation...the Americans of 1801 had more gadgets, better weapons, a superior knowledge of geography, and other advantages over the ancients, but they could not move goods or themselves or information by land or water any faster than had the Greeks and Romans." Wow!
Finally, I was amazed at Lewis' pre-expedition life-- and his really close, father/son-like relationship with Jefferson, as his right-hand man and fellow bachelor roommate in the White House. And I was shocked to learn about Lewis' sad post-expedition life. he was unable to discipline himself to put the journals in publishable form. And he repeatedly tried to commit suicide before succeeding just three years after his return.
His suicide and especially his failure to get the journals published hurt his reputation and limited the now-amazing level of praise for their exploits (p. 526-531). It was nearly a century afterwards that scholars began to emphasize the importance of the famous expedition that we now take for granted, historically.
More Cliff Notes
To contact us Click HERE
Here's Part 2 on "cliff notes" (after Part 1)...
Last week, I wrote about the infamous, impending and ominous “Fiscal Cliff”. A combination of cuts in the planned growth of federal government spending and large increases in federal taxes is scheduled to take place on January 1. It doesn’t take a PhD in Economics to know this would cause problems for our limping labor market and our slowly growing macroeconomy.
There are three issues at hand. First, the underlying problems are our massive federal budget deficits and rapidly growing budget debt. Second, the potential solutions are also problematic. Actual reductions in government spending (however unlikely) and big increases in tax rates (and likely, an increase in tax revenues) would make it even more difficult for the economy to grow.
Third, all of this contributes to what economists call “regime uncertainty”. Nobody knows what Congress and President Obama will do—from the extent to which they’ll address the problem to the particular solutions they’ll embrace. And nobody knows if we’re near the cliff that limits the size of the debt. The debt may soon be perceived by investors as unmanageable. If so, they will refuse to loan money to the government—or will require a higher interest rate. This means higher debt payments, more trouble for our economy, and tighter austerity measures in the future. Finally, no one understands how ObamaCare will be implemented—or how that will impact business decisions.
Any investment becomes more difficult when risk and uncertainty increase. Consumers are less likely to buy cars and homes. Businesses are less likely to hire workers and expand their scale of operations. Investors will require a higher rate-of-return to offset the higher risk—in order to make their capital available. And all of the above will reduce economic growth.
Worse yet, there are other cliffs in our near future. In the realm of the budget, we’re scheduled to hit the debt ceiling again in February and the federal budget’s “continuing resolution” spending ends in March. If recent history is any guide, both decisions will feature plenty of political drama.
Health care has cliffs too. Doctors are planning for a big increase in their marginal income tax rates. And on January 1, Medicare reimbursements to physicians are scheduled for a 27.4% cut. Congress typically intervenes to prevent cuts like this, but this time may be different. Tighter budgets and a desire to restrict Medicare costs may lead Congress to allow the cuts to stand.
Finally, in January 2014, we can look forward to the imposition of cliffs within ObamaCare’s mandates. For example, since the law and its costs have a larger impact on firms with more than 100 employees, firms will try to stay underneath that threshold. Smaller firms will avoid growth and larger firms will look for opportunities to spin their activity into smaller, less-regulated entities.
Some cliffs are tough to avoid, given the nature of the subsidies in ObamaCare. For example, the government already provides a massive indirect subsidy (more than $100 billion) to purchase insurance through your workplace, since it is a non-taxed form of compensation. (This subsidy causes most of the troubles in our markets for health insurance and health care, but that’s another article!) Now, ObamaCare provides direct subsidies to the working poor and those in the middle income classes. For the working poor, these subsidies are much larger. The good news for them is that they have access to a larger subsidy; the bad news is that this cliff provides firms with a strong incentive to offload those employees to ObamaCare.
Some cliffs could be avoided if the subsidies are set up properly. Unfortunately, under ObamaCare, marriage is penalized for middle-income, dual-earner households. As with any means-tested welfare program, there are also substantial penalties for work, since benefits are reduced as one earns more money. Beyond that, there are a few large cliffs at certain income levels—where benefits are dramatically reduced if you earn one dollar “too much”. At 400% of the poverty level (about $90,000 in income), subsidies are suddenly reduced from about $5,000 to zero. And at 133% of the poverty line, earning an extra dollar would result in contributing 3% rather than 2% of your income to insurance premiums.
Politicians are fond of “cliffs” these days. You can understand why, right? Because the general public doesn’t pay much attention to political economy, politicians have a strong incentive to ignore subtle costs and to procrastinate by pushing costs into the future. If they’re going to postpone tough decisions and add a lot of uncertainty to the economy, perhaps we should send them over an electoral cliff at our next opportunity.
Last week, I wrote about the infamous, impending and ominous “Fiscal Cliff”. A combination of cuts in the planned growth of federal government spending and large increases in federal taxes is scheduled to take place on January 1. It doesn’t take a PhD in Economics to know this would cause problems for our limping labor market and our slowly growing macroeconomy.
There are three issues at hand. First, the underlying problems are our massive federal budget deficits and rapidly growing budget debt. Second, the potential solutions are also problematic. Actual reductions in government spending (however unlikely) and big increases in tax rates (and likely, an increase in tax revenues) would make it even more difficult for the economy to grow.
Third, all of this contributes to what economists call “regime uncertainty”. Nobody knows what Congress and President Obama will do—from the extent to which they’ll address the problem to the particular solutions they’ll embrace. And nobody knows if we’re near the cliff that limits the size of the debt. The debt may soon be perceived by investors as unmanageable. If so, they will refuse to loan money to the government—or will require a higher interest rate. This means higher debt payments, more trouble for our economy, and tighter austerity measures in the future. Finally, no one understands how ObamaCare will be implemented—or how that will impact business decisions.
Any investment becomes more difficult when risk and uncertainty increase. Consumers are less likely to buy cars and homes. Businesses are less likely to hire workers and expand their scale of operations. Investors will require a higher rate-of-return to offset the higher risk—in order to make their capital available. And all of the above will reduce economic growth.
Worse yet, there are other cliffs in our near future. In the realm of the budget, we’re scheduled to hit the debt ceiling again in February and the federal budget’s “continuing resolution” spending ends in March. If recent history is any guide, both decisions will feature plenty of political drama.
Health care has cliffs too. Doctors are planning for a big increase in their marginal income tax rates. And on January 1, Medicare reimbursements to physicians are scheduled for a 27.4% cut. Congress typically intervenes to prevent cuts like this, but this time may be different. Tighter budgets and a desire to restrict Medicare costs may lead Congress to allow the cuts to stand.
Finally, in January 2014, we can look forward to the imposition of cliffs within ObamaCare’s mandates. For example, since the law and its costs have a larger impact on firms with more than 100 employees, firms will try to stay underneath that threshold. Smaller firms will avoid growth and larger firms will look for opportunities to spin their activity into smaller, less-regulated entities.
Some cliffs are tough to avoid, given the nature of the subsidies in ObamaCare. For example, the government already provides a massive indirect subsidy (more than $100 billion) to purchase insurance through your workplace, since it is a non-taxed form of compensation. (This subsidy causes most of the troubles in our markets for health insurance and health care, but that’s another article!) Now, ObamaCare provides direct subsidies to the working poor and those in the middle income classes. For the working poor, these subsidies are much larger. The good news for them is that they have access to a larger subsidy; the bad news is that this cliff provides firms with a strong incentive to offload those employees to ObamaCare.
Some cliffs could be avoided if the subsidies are set up properly. Unfortunately, under ObamaCare, marriage is penalized for middle-income, dual-earner households. As with any means-tested welfare program, there are also substantial penalties for work, since benefits are reduced as one earns more money. Beyond that, there are a few large cliffs at certain income levels—where benefits are dramatically reduced if you earn one dollar “too much”. At 400% of the poverty level (about $90,000 in income), subsidies are suddenly reduced from about $5,000 to zero. And at 133% of the poverty line, earning an extra dollar would result in contributing 3% rather than 2% of your income to insurance premiums.
Politicians are fond of “cliffs” these days. You can understand why, right? Because the general public doesn’t pay much attention to political economy, politicians have a strong incentive to ignore subtle costs and to procrastinate by pushing costs into the future. If they’re going to postpone tough decisions and add a lot of uncertainty to the economy, perhaps we should send them over an electoral cliff at our next opportunity.
We're Back and ready to Rank... New Republican Rankings for August 7, 2007... Where do they stand?
To contact us Click HERE
Well it's been a while and definitely a long time since the last promised update in rankings. Most of you already know the major changes that have taken place since the last ranking came out. Just for a brief overview of the two biggest happenings...
- John McCain had a major meltdown in his campaign when three top campaign leaders, including the Campaign Manager and the Lead Strategist resigned from the campaign.
- Jim Gilmore dropped out of the race and no one has really missed him.
Now for the good stuff...
Republican Presidential Candidate Rankings as of August 7, 2008 (Pre-Ames Straw Poll)
1. Mitt Romney
Well Mitt's use of the almighty dollar puts him at the front of the pack in Iowa and for that case in the race itself. Romney has made sure he is not unknown going into the straw poll. But is Mitt really how Iowa wants? Polls have shown that Romney's message has just not spoke loudly in Iowa. Not nearly as much as his name and face. Lets face the facts, Mitt Romney cleans up well and is an extremely good public speaker and puts out a great image on television looking like a family man who is just another average American, the only part of that, that will come back to bit him is in the Straw Poll and Caucus the voters get to see the candidates in real life and in real life Mitt does not come off anywhere as good as he does on television. Money and popularity have gotten Romney to the top spot, but it is not likely that he will take Iowa just to the fact that Iowans have through out history filtered the phonies out of the race. And that's all Romney is. A pretty talking head phony.
2. Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee has been on an unbelievable tear as of late. It looked as if he was about to take a big hit after the second quarter fundraising figures came out. Huckabee had finished in the bottom 3 of Republicans and it looked like his campaign was about to go into panic mode. However Mike had different plans. Just as the name of his latest book, his campaign has risen From Hope to Higher Ground. After the ABC News debate from Iowa it seems as if Huckabee has an excellent chance at not only placing highly at the straw poll, but even winning the poll in Ames. During the Iowa/ABC News Debate Dr. Frank Luntz (one of the nations top political pollsters) used the new real-time dial technology that let's voters give an immediate feedback to what they think about what the candidate is saying. Dr. Luntz said that Huckabee's numbers went through the roof when attacked the Suadi royal family and their involvement and funding of terrorism with money coming from US oil revenue and that America needs to be independent on energy within 10 years. Read this small portion of a Politico.com article...
"At the session’s start, only one participant picked Huckabee as the candidate he or she wanted to win. Nine chose former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, eight were for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, five were for the absent Fred Thompson, two were for McCain, and the remaining candidates were picked by one or none.
But when it was over, Huckabee had 14 votes, compared with 10 for Romney, three for Giuliani, one for Fred Thompson and one for Rep. Duncan Hunter of California."
Check out the entire article by clicking here.
This is all great news for the Huckabee camp and he is an a great position to be catapulted to the front of the pack after the Iowa Straw Poll this Saturday.
3-t. Rudy Giuliani
The man who started out the campaign as the favorite to sweep through the primaries with out much resistance has had a much rougher time than expected and has fallen from his top spot. He refuses to get down and play primary politics. Giuliani seems to think that meeting voters one on one in Iowa and even on a big scale by way of the Ames Straw Poll and the September YouTube debate is too much work for him and not enough gain. Not only has Giuliani lost hundreds of thousands of potential votes by trying to play primary politics on a national level, he has alienated much of his support in Iowa which is THE most important state in the primaries for Republicans. Does anyone else remember what happened to the last big name candidate who tried to take his campaign to a national level months in advance and then got blown out in the primaries?
It was only four years ago when just that happened to the democrats original favorite, Howard Dean. Dean had money, a popular name, a message that many democrats were in too and so he thought he could skip the entire primary process that has elected our Presidents all through out history and get a seventh month head start on the general election.
I believe Rudy Giuliani will be wishing he would have learned the phrase "If you don't learn history, you are doomed to repeat it." Because it seems like Mayor Giuliani is totally clueless as to what is about to happen to his campaign in the primary states. And that is fail.
3-t. Fred Thompson
Time is running out for Fred Thompson. All depending on how the Ames Iowa Straw Poll turns out he could find himself losing a lot of his popularity. His name being on the ballot may actually hurt him. If he does not finish in the top two and loses to some one who is not Rudy Giulian or John McCain (which is very likely) he will begin to slip as "the candidate everyone wants". If Mike Huckabee wins the Straw Poll it will likely end the chances of Fred Thompson entering the campaign as the favorite. Right now he thrives on being the "true conservative" which is nothing but a myth. A Huckabee win at the Straw Poll would undoubtedly put Mike in the "top tier" and all it would take to find out that Huckabee is much more conservative than Fred is a few minutes on the internet. Not to mention Huckabee beats him out on experience and record. If Fred Thompson wants to be the Republican nominee, he better hope Huckabee has a bad showing at the Ames Straw Poll or he better jump in the race and try to spin his weak record to people. If he does not, his campaign will be nothing but a "what if" by the end of the month.
5. John McCain
As you saw above, McCain's campaign has taken hit, after hit, after hit and it is really starting to show. He has been declared the loser of ever debate, except for the first according to Dr. Frank Luntz, the Fox News pollster mentioned earlier in the rankings. It seems like Immigration (which if you might remember Republican Race '08 predicted it spoiling his chance at winning the nomination) has destroyed his campaign. He too has decided to skip the Iowa Straw Poll this Saturday, but his campaign had no real shot at showing well in the poll and so he backed out to have a reason for his poor showing. He did not fair well in 1999 in the Iowa Straw Poll and that was the beginning of the end of his presidential hopes in '99 and here we are in 2008 and we are near the end of the end of his presidential campaign this year. And once again the Iowa Straw Poll will show how little his support he really has.
6. Tom Tancredo
Who ever thought Tancredo would make it this far? In the last ranking he was ranked dead last behind Jim Gilmore. He has made a surge taking bold stances on not only immigration, but has widened his spectrum to taxes, Congresses high spending and even has a better grip on foreign policy and the War on Terror and Iraq. He has became more and more popular and is now the leader of "the new second tier" and he had an excellent 2nd quarter in fundraising and has used it to get his name out in Iowa. All depending on his showing in the Ames Straw Poll, Congressman Tancredo could be positioning him self as a leading candidate to be the VP nominee.
7. Duncan Hunter
Duncan Hunter has remained a solid name in the "second tier", but he hasn't really picked up a lot of ground. He did not perform well in fundraising and is not really gaining popularity, but he has been staying in about the same place in polls (around 6th-8th)
He has had two great showings at the last two debates and is still impressing and surprising people, but just like all the other candidates he will find out where it has put him in the eyes of the people after the Iowa Straw Poll.
8. Sam Brownback
Brownback has become the red headed step child of the group. He doesn't get any attention and in an attempt to get more attention he has constantly cried about other candidates and has on two attempts, blamed candidates for things they had nothing to do with (most recently the Huckabee camp for a supporters email). He has not been charming nearly as many Iowans as pundits thought he would. Instead he has become a big annoyance for everyone else in the race and has dropped into the attack mode attacking Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee and it has not helped him in the polls at all and according to Dr. Frank Luntz' real-time feedback dials voters have not liked what Sam Brownback has said about some of his fellow candidate and many did not approve of his campaigns attack phone calls to voters regarding Mitt Romney.
9. Tommy Thompson
Mr. Wisconsin is the only man who has remained in his post from the last ranking. Tommy has impressed many people on Health Care, if he would make that the main topic of his campaign he would probably be a lot higher in this ranking, but he has not played his card correctly and here he is, a spot away from dead last and only above Ron Paul.
Thompson has been performing better in the debates, but he still isn't "clicking" with voters and it shows. In most polls he is barely registering and in the ones he has he is no higher than 2%, with the exception of a few where voters mistake him for Fred Thompson.
Tommy's campaign will likely be over a week or two after the Straw Poll.
10. Ron Paul
Well I guess we'll see how many Ron Paul cronies read Republican Race '08! Dr. Paul has lost just about all credibility by resorting to the "neo-conservative" movement and take over of the Republican Party. That phase will end any chance he ever had of pulling an upset. It has been a phrase that has ended many "true conservatives" campaigns all across the nation in many republican states. Fact being you don't call your potential voters a name just about all of them hate to be called. You can not alienate voters and expect to win and Ron Paul has done just that. Alienated Republican voters. You would think a man as educated as Dr. Paul would know how to speak to voters, but yet he doesn't and that lands him in dead-last.
We will update the rankings after the Ames Straw Poll this Saturday. Please check back within the next day or two or subscribe by email (just put your email in the box above to the right and click submit) We will have new articles coming regularly.
To those of you who want to know... I have been moving to my new apartment, in a new state and that has consumed a lot of my time the last month and a half and I have not had a chance to hit the blog on a regular basis.
But Good News... I'M BACK and Republican Race '08 is back to being a regularly updated web site.
Stay tuned for the best coverage on the 2008 Republican Race for the White House!
- John McCain had a major meltdown in his campaign when three top campaign leaders, including the Campaign Manager and the Lead Strategist resigned from the campaign.
- Jim Gilmore dropped out of the race and no one has really missed him.
Now for the good stuff...
Republican Presidential Candidate Rankings as of August 7, 2008 (Pre-Ames Straw Poll)
1. Mitt Romney
Well Mitt's use of the almighty dollar puts him at the front of the pack in Iowa and for that case in the race itself. Romney has made sure he is not unknown going into the straw poll. But is Mitt really how Iowa wants? Polls have shown that Romney's message has just not spoke loudly in Iowa. Not nearly as much as his name and face. Lets face the facts, Mitt Romney cleans up well and is an extremely good public speaker and puts out a great image on television looking like a family man who is just another average American, the only part of that, that will come back to bit him is in the Straw Poll and Caucus the voters get to see the candidates in real life and in real life Mitt does not come off anywhere as good as he does on television. Money and popularity have gotten Romney to the top spot, but it is not likely that he will take Iowa just to the fact that Iowans have through out history filtered the phonies out of the race. And that's all Romney is. A pretty talking head phony.2. Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee has been on an unbelievable tear as of late. It looked as if he was about to take a big hit after the second quarter fundraising figures came out. Huckabee had finished in the bottom 3 of Republicans and it looked like his campaign was about to go into panic mode. However Mike had different plans. Just as the name of his latest book, his campaign has risen From Hope to Higher Ground. After the ABC News debate from Iowa it seems as if Huckabee has an excellent chance at not only placing highly at the straw poll, but even winning the poll in Ames. During the Iowa/ABC News Debate Dr. Frank Luntz (one of the nations top political pollsters) used the new real-time dial technology that let's voters give an immediate feedback to what they think about what the candidate is saying. Dr. Luntz said that Huckabee's numbers went through the roof when attacked the Suadi royal family and their involvement and funding of terrorism with money coming from US oil revenue and that America needs to be independent on energy within 10 years. Read this small portion of a Politico.com article..."At the session’s start, only one participant picked Huckabee as the candidate he or she wanted to win. Nine chose former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, eight were for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, five were for the absent Fred Thompson, two were for McCain, and the remaining candidates were picked by one or none.
But when it was over, Huckabee had 14 votes, compared with 10 for Romney, three for Giuliani, one for Fred Thompson and one for Rep. Duncan Hunter of California."
Check out the entire article by clicking here.
This is all great news for the Huckabee camp and he is an a great position to be catapulted to the front of the pack after the Iowa Straw Poll this Saturday.
3-t. Rudy Giuliani
The man who started out the campaign as the favorite to sweep through the primaries with out much resistance has had a much rougher time than expected and has fallen from his top spot. He refuses to get down and play primary politics. Giuliani seems to think that meeting voters one on one in Iowa and even on a big scale by way of the Ames Straw Poll and the September YouTube debate is too much work for him and not enough gain. Not only has Giuliani lost hundreds of thousands of potential votes by trying to play primary politics on a national level, he has alienated much of his support in Iowa which is THE most important state in the primaries for Republicans. Does anyone else remember what happened to the last big name candidate who tried to take his campaign to a national level months in advance and then got blown out in the primaries?It was only four years ago when just that happened to the democrats original favorite, Howard Dean. Dean had money, a popular name, a message that many democrats were in too and so he thought he could skip the entire primary process that has elected our Presidents all through out history and get a seventh month head start on the general election.
I believe Rudy Giuliani will be wishing he would have learned the phrase "If you don't learn history, you are doomed to repeat it." Because it seems like Mayor Giuliani is totally clueless as to what is about to happen to his campaign in the primary states. And that is fail.
3-t. Fred Thompson
Time is running out for Fred Thompson. All depending on how the Ames Iowa Straw Poll turns out he could find himself losing a lot of his popularity. His name being on the ballot may actually hurt him. If he does not finish in the top two and loses to some one who is not Rudy Giulian or John McCain (which is very likely) he will begin to slip as "the candidate everyone wants". If Mike Huckabee wins the Straw Poll it will likely end the chances of Fred Thompson entering the campaign as the favorite. Right now he thrives on being the "true conservative" which is nothing but a myth. A Huckabee win at the Straw Poll would undoubtedly put Mike in the "top tier" and all it would take to find out that Huckabee is much more conservative than Fred is a few minutes on the internet. Not to mention Huckabee beats him out on experience and record. If Fred Thompson wants to be the Republican nominee, he better hope Huckabee has a bad showing at the Ames Straw Poll or he better jump in the race and try to spin his weak record to people. If he does not, his campaign will be nothing but a "what if" by the end of the month.5. John McCain
As you saw above, McCain's campaign has taken hit, after hit, after hit and it is really starting to show. He has been declared the loser of ever debate, except for the first according to Dr. Frank Luntz, the Fox News pollster mentioned earlier in the rankings. It seems like Immigration (which if you might remember Republican Race '08 predicted it spoiling his chance at winning the nomination) has destroyed his campaign. He too has decided to skip the Iowa Straw Poll this Saturday, but his campaign had no real shot at showing well in the poll and so he backed out to have a reason for his poor showing. He did not fair well in 1999 in the Iowa Straw Poll and that was the beginning of the end of his presidential hopes in '99 and here we are in 2008 and we are near the end of the end of his presidential campaign this year. And once again the Iowa Straw Poll will show how little his support he really has.6. Tom Tancredo
Who ever thought Tancredo would make it this far? In the last ranking he was ranked dead last behind Jim Gilmore. He has made a surge taking bold stances on not only immigration, but has widened his spectrum to taxes, Congresses high spending and even has a better grip on foreign policy and the War on Terror and Iraq. He has became more and more popular and is now the leader of "the new second tier" and he had an excellent 2nd quarter in fundraising and has used it to get his name out in Iowa. All depending on his showing in the Ames Straw Poll, Congressman Tancredo could be positioning him self as a leading candidate to be the VP nominee.7. Duncan Hunter
Duncan Hunter has remained a solid name in the "second tier", but he hasn't really picked up a lot of ground. He did not perform well in fundraising and is not really gaining popularity, but he has been staying in about the same place in polls (around 6th-8th)He has had two great showings at the last two debates and is still impressing and surprising people, but just like all the other candidates he will find out where it has put him in the eyes of the people after the Iowa Straw Poll.
8. Sam Brownback
Brownback has become the red headed step child of the group. He doesn't get any attention and in an attempt to get more attention he has constantly cried about other candidates and has on two attempts, blamed candidates for things they had nothing to do with (most recently the Huckabee camp for a supporters email). He has not been charming nearly as many Iowans as pundits thought he would. Instead he has become a big annoyance for everyone else in the race and has dropped into the attack mode attacking Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee and it has not helped him in the polls at all and according to Dr. Frank Luntz' real-time feedback dials voters have not liked what Sam Brownback has said about some of his fellow candidate and many did not approve of his campaigns attack phone calls to voters regarding Mitt Romney.9. Tommy Thompson
Mr. Wisconsin is the only man who has remained in his post from the last ranking. Tommy has impressed many people on Health Care, if he would make that the main topic of his campaign he would probably be a lot higher in this ranking, but he has not played his card correctly and here he is, a spot away from dead last and only above Ron Paul.Thompson has been performing better in the debates, but he still isn't "clicking" with voters and it shows. In most polls he is barely registering and in the ones he has he is no higher than 2%, with the exception of a few where voters mistake him for Fred Thompson.
Tommy's campaign will likely be over a week or two after the Straw Poll.
10. Ron Paul
Well I guess we'll see how many Ron Paul cronies read Republican Race '08! Dr. Paul has lost just about all credibility by resorting to the "neo-conservative" movement and take over of the Republican Party. That phase will end any chance he ever had of pulling an upset. It has been a phrase that has ended many "true conservatives" campaigns all across the nation in many republican states. Fact being you don't call your potential voters a name just about all of them hate to be called. You can not alienate voters and expect to win and Ron Paul has done just that. Alienated Republican voters. You would think a man as educated as Dr. Paul would know how to speak to voters, but yet he doesn't and that lands him in dead-last.We will update the rankings after the Ames Straw Poll this Saturday. Please check back within the next day or two or subscribe by email (just put your email in the box above to the right and click submit) We will have new articles coming regularly.
To those of you who want to know... I have been moving to my new apartment, in a new state and that has consumed a lot of my time the last month and a half and I have not had a chance to hit the blog on a regular basis.
But Good News... I'M BACK and Republican Race '08 is back to being a regularly updated web site.
Stay tuned for the best coverage on the 2008 Republican Race for the White House!
Huckabee's Message is Right for South Carolina, Iowa, New Hampshire, and America
To contact us Click HERE
That quote came from former Governor of South Carolina David Beasley in today's Conference Call with Bloggers with Gov. Mike Huckabee.
We got a chance to actually get in two questions today...
Our first question was... Gov. Huckabee, Sam Brownback has recently launched an aggressive attack campaign on both Mitt Romney and yourself, to a lesser degree. And the Club for Growth has a distorted smear ad out against you. How do you feel about attacking other candidates in politics and what’s your personal opinion on the ad’s out against yourself and Gov. Romney? And do you think running your campaign with more integrity, on a positive message focusing on yourself rather than someone else, is why you have passed Senator Brownback and are doing so well in Iowa?
- Gov. Huckabee said "(Iowan voters) want to hear what’s great about America, not what's bad about another candidate." He said that it's important not to go out against another candidate in your party because “you have to eat your words months down the road if that person gets the nomination and then you have to act like that person is better than toothpaste". He said the he thinks a large part of the reason he has done so well in Iowa, is that Iowans like his positive message that focuses on him and not against another candidate.
Gov. Huckabee also said the attack ads just give further validation that his campaign his gaining huge momentum and that Washington and other candidates are trying to slow him down, but it is not working.
-Gov. Beasley also gave his opinions on the Club for Growths smear ad against Huckabee. "He’s Not a inside the beltway person and that's what they are against him(Huckabee)… that’s why we need a guy like Mike Huckabee" He also said, "Washington is trying to put out a message that America does not want to hear, but Gov. Huckabee is talking about what Americans think is important. The Club for Growth in Washington is not putting out a message like many of the Club for Growth members I know around the country, who have the same message as Gov. Huckabee."
And the second question was a lighter topic...
Gov. Huckabee, after seeing yourself in third in the ABC News/Washington Post poll and winning the debate and blowing away voters according to Dr. Frank Luntz, and even having Speaker Gingrich who is one of the most respected people in the party say everything he said. Have you gotten a chance to take a step back and actually think that you have a good shot of being on that stage in Saint Paul in September accepting the GOP nomination and if so how does that feel?
-He said that he hadn't had time to really think about and the campaign has been so focused at getting every possible vote on Saturday it has been a full steam ahead type deal. He did say that he knows he has to remember it's a long way until next September and he does have to remember that, but he seemed pretty excited about the idea of being on the stage in St. Paul accepting his parties nomination, but hey, who wouldn't?
Gov. Huckabee had stressed early in the debate about how much the people of Iowa like his message saying “We’ve used minimal resources to pass those who are using millions of dollars” and seemed very please with the status of his campaign.
Gov. Beasley said that Mike has out ran the big money candidates by "pounding the pavement in Iowa" and getting his message into every home in Iowa. Not through their TV, but through their door. "He takes the time to give his consistent message and consistent record to all the people in Iowa".
Gov. Huckabee seems very excited about this Saturday and think that "history will be made there". The Huckabee campaign will have a action packed day including two scheduled performances of Capitol Offense "the best band in politics" and also Watermelon for everyone from Mike's hometown of Hope, Arkansas. They will also be giving away a 100+ pound watermelon.
The candidate who currently holds the number two spot in the Republican Race '08 Rankings is looking to have a big day on Saturday.
Stay Tuned for more coverage all week long on the 2007 Ames Iowa Straw Poll.
That quote came from former Governor of South Carolina David Beasley in today's Conference Call with Bloggers with Gov. Mike Huckabee.We got a chance to actually get in two questions today...
Our first question was... Gov. Huckabee, Sam Brownback has recently launched an aggressive attack campaign on both Mitt Romney and yourself, to a lesser degree. And the Club for Growth has a distorted smear ad out against you. How do you feel about attacking other candidates in politics and what’s your personal opinion on the ad’s out against yourself and Gov. Romney? And do you think running your campaign with more integrity, on a positive message focusing on yourself rather than someone else, is why you have passed Senator Brownback and are doing so well in Iowa?
- Gov. Huckabee said "(Iowan voters) want to hear what’s great about America, not what's bad about another candidate." He said that it's important not to go out against another candidate in your party because “you have to eat your words months down the road if that person gets the nomination and then you have to act like that person is better than toothpaste". He said the he thinks a large part of the reason he has done so well in Iowa, is that Iowans like his positive message that focuses on him and not against another candidate.
Gov. Huckabee also said the attack ads just give further validation that his campaign his gaining huge momentum and that Washington and other candidates are trying to slow him down, but it is not working.
-Gov. Beasley also gave his opinions on the Club for Growths smear ad against Huckabee. "He’s Not a inside the beltway person and that's what they are against him(Huckabee)… that’s why we need a guy like Mike Huckabee" He also said, "Washington is trying to put out a message that America does not want to hear, but Gov. Huckabee is talking about what Americans think is important. The Club for Growth in Washington is not putting out a message like many of the Club for Growth members I know around the country, who have the same message as Gov. Huckabee."
And the second question was a lighter topic...
Gov. Huckabee, after seeing yourself in third in the ABC News/Washington Post poll and winning the debate and blowing away voters according to Dr. Frank Luntz, and even having Speaker Gingrich who is one of the most respected people in the party say everything he said. Have you gotten a chance to take a step back and actually think that you have a good shot of being on that stage in Saint Paul in September accepting the GOP nomination and if so how does that feel?
-He said that he hadn't had time to really think about and the campaign has been so focused at getting every possible vote on Saturday it has been a full steam ahead type deal. He did say that he knows he has to remember it's a long way until next September and he does have to remember that, but he seemed pretty excited about the idea of being on the stage in St. Paul accepting his parties nomination, but hey, who wouldn't?
Gov. Huckabee had stressed early in the debate about how much the people of Iowa like his message saying “We’ve used minimal resources to pass those who are using millions of dollars” and seemed very please with the status of his campaign.
Gov. Beasley said that Mike has out ran the big money candidates by "pounding the pavement in Iowa" and getting his message into every home in Iowa. Not through their TV, but through their door. "He takes the time to give his consistent message and consistent record to all the people in Iowa".
Gov. Huckabee seems very excited about this Saturday and think that "history will be made there". The Huckabee campaign will have a action packed day including two scheduled performances of Capitol Offense "the best band in politics" and also Watermelon for everyone from Mike's hometown of Hope, Arkansas. They will also be giving away a 100+ pound watermelon.
The candidate who currently holds the number two spot in the Republican Race '08 Rankings is looking to have a big day on Saturday.
Stay Tuned for more coverage all week long on the 2007 Ames Iowa Straw Poll.
16 Aralık 2012 Pazar
review of Paul Collier's "The Bottom Billion"
To contact us Click HERE
Paul Collier's The Bottom Billion is an excellent book-- a must-read for those interested in international poverty.
Collier opens by noting that international poverty used to be about 1 billion people in developed countries, in contrast to 4 billion in less-developed countries. (This terminology was an update from "1st world" and "3rd world".) Now, we have 5 billion people in developING countries and 1 billion in impoverished and stagnant countries "less-developed". The issue is not so much their lack of development, since poverty is not inherently a trap. (If it were, we'd all be poor, for all of history!) The larger issue is that they're stuck.
Previous efforts have centered on "biz and buzz"-- the bureaucracy of professionals trying to help the poor in these (largely African) countries and the rock stars who get involved at various levels. Collier appreciates the good intentions and the herculean efforts-- although those are in concert with naivete and graft. But he says that we're missing it.
The biggest value-added: Collier discusses four "traps" and the data on their impact: 1.) "conflict": war and civil war; 2.) an abundance of natural resources; 3.) being land-locked (especially with bad neighbors); and 4.) bad government.
A little more detail on 1 and 2: "Conflict" has cause and effect with poverty-- and is connected to resources, as those in power (or those seeking power and wealth) use force to extract wealth from the country's resources. As such, an abundance of natural resources is a very mixed bag. They should be helpful, on paper-- but in practice, it often plays out as a curse rather than a blessing. (By analogy, think about individuals who are talented, beautiful, or really intelligent-- and how that often doesn't play out so well.)
Economists focus on #4 a lot and at least allude to #2. We certainly know about #1's importance, but it's largely outside our field. #3 was novel to me, but probably not to those with a little more expertise in the field.
Collier points to the inefficacy of foreign aid, at least of the traditional sort, in practice. (But he's not ready to give up on the possibility of it being effective!) And he notes the importance of economic growth, which typically benefits most people, including the poor.
His RX's: 1.) Target aid to the best governments or make it conditional on policy reforms. (This is harsh in a way, but sets the best incentives for improving. On paper, we can help dictators, but in practice, it won't work that way.) 2.) Give aid post-conflict, but not too soon: the data on "too soon" indicates that it promotes the re-establishment of conflict. 3.) Give aid to countries without as many resources. (For those with a lot of resources, that's not what they need!). 4.) Promote trade and access to coasts/ports. 5.) Finally, he even sees military intervention as an ethical and practical possibility (but overstates both-- as they would play out in practice!).
An easy read with a ton of great material on international poverty. If that's a topic of interest, you need this book!
Collier opens by noting that international poverty used to be about 1 billion people in developed countries, in contrast to 4 billion in less-developed countries. (This terminology was an update from "1st world" and "3rd world".) Now, we have 5 billion people in developING countries and 1 billion in impoverished and stagnant countries "less-developed". The issue is not so much their lack of development, since poverty is not inherently a trap. (If it were, we'd all be poor, for all of history!) The larger issue is that they're stuck.
Previous efforts have centered on "biz and buzz"-- the bureaucracy of professionals trying to help the poor in these (largely African) countries and the rock stars who get involved at various levels. Collier appreciates the good intentions and the herculean efforts-- although those are in concert with naivete and graft. But he says that we're missing it.
The biggest value-added: Collier discusses four "traps" and the data on their impact: 1.) "conflict": war and civil war; 2.) an abundance of natural resources; 3.) being land-locked (especially with bad neighbors); and 4.) bad government.
A little more detail on 1 and 2: "Conflict" has cause and effect with poverty-- and is connected to resources, as those in power (or those seeking power and wealth) use force to extract wealth from the country's resources. As such, an abundance of natural resources is a very mixed bag. They should be helpful, on paper-- but in practice, it often plays out as a curse rather than a blessing. (By analogy, think about individuals who are talented, beautiful, or really intelligent-- and how that often doesn't play out so well.)
Economists focus on #4 a lot and at least allude to #2. We certainly know about #1's importance, but it's largely outside our field. #3 was novel to me, but probably not to those with a little more expertise in the field.
Collier points to the inefficacy of foreign aid, at least of the traditional sort, in practice. (But he's not ready to give up on the possibility of it being effective!) And he notes the importance of economic growth, which typically benefits most people, including the poor.
His RX's: 1.) Target aid to the best governments or make it conditional on policy reforms. (This is harsh in a way, but sets the best incentives for improving. On paper, we can help dictators, but in practice, it won't work that way.) 2.) Give aid post-conflict, but not too soon: the data on "too soon" indicates that it promotes the re-establishment of conflict. 3.) Give aid to countries without as many resources. (For those with a lot of resources, that's not what they need!). 4.) Promote trade and access to coasts/ports. 5.) Finally, he even sees military intervention as an ethical and practical possibility (but overstates both-- as they would play out in practice!).
An easy read with a ton of great material on international poverty. If that's a topic of interest, you need this book!
the fiscal cliffs
To contact us Click HERE
From its appearance in the (Jeff-NA) News-Tribune, here's part 1 of a two-part series on various cliffs our politicians are driving us towards. This one focuses on the infamous "fiscal cliff" and its less famous cause, the debt cliff.
Before President Obama’s second term, he has some crucial business with the “lame-duck” session of Congress. Because of temporary tax cuts, previous budget deals and procrastination in dealing with the debt, the country now faces a “fiscal cliff” on New Years Day 2013.
The key factors are the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the scheduled end of a handful of tax cuts. The BCA lays out automatic budget cuts to be split between military and domestic spending: $55 billion in both categories. This would result in a 9 percent cut to the Pentagon and an 8 percent cut in domestic programs — but only when compared with their regularly scheduled increases.
The tax increases would be much larger: about $500 billion overall or what the Urban Institute’s Tax Policy Center estimates to be $3,500 per household on average and $2,000 for “middle income” households.
About $156 billion of this is the expiration of the Bush-Obama income tax cuts. Marginal tax rates would increase across the board — from 10 to 15 percent on the lowest end and 35 to 39.6 percent on the highest end. The child tax credit would be reduced from $1,000 to $500 per child and would no longer be refundable.
As for the tax cuts on those earning more than $250,000, their expiration would raise about $23 billion. Higher tax rates for all capital gains and dividends would raise about $25 billion. The estate tax — currently 35 percent on wealth over $5.12 million — would revert to 55 percent on wealth over $1 million, raising about $10 billion.
There are four other significant tax increases on the horizon. First, “accelerated depreciation” would end — a subsidy to business which artificially boosts the attractiveness of capital.
Second, Congress will consider another Band-Aid for the “alternative minimum tax” — an arbitrary limit on loopholes. If not, the alternative minimum tax would expand from five million to 25 million households, raising their taxes by $3,700 on average.
Third, Obamacare will add new taxes of $23 billion, mostly from a payroll tax increase on high incomes. Fourth, Obama’s “payroll tax holiday” will expire, increasing taxes by $125 billion on all workers.
The problem is that we have massive deficits and debt. The White House estimates that revenues will cover only interest on the debt and “entitlement” spending in 2012. All other functions of government are being financed through borrowing.
It’s doubtful that enough of our elected officials have the courage to cut spending, so the rich are an attractive target. Politically, the GOP may be better off to join the president here. It wouldn’t raise much money, but it would show willingness to compromise and remove a big distraction.
Then, we can focus on the critical choice: big spending cuts versus big middle-income tax increases to close the budget chasm caused by our elected officials.
Before President Obama’s second term, he has some crucial business with the “lame-duck” session of Congress. Because of temporary tax cuts, previous budget deals and procrastination in dealing with the debt, the country now faces a “fiscal cliff” on New Years Day 2013.
The key factors are the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the scheduled end of a handful of tax cuts. The BCA lays out automatic budget cuts to be split between military and domestic spending: $55 billion in both categories. This would result in a 9 percent cut to the Pentagon and an 8 percent cut in domestic programs — but only when compared with their regularly scheduled increases.
The tax increases would be much larger: about $500 billion overall or what the Urban Institute’s Tax Policy Center estimates to be $3,500 per household on average and $2,000 for “middle income” households.
About $156 billion of this is the expiration of the Bush-Obama income tax cuts. Marginal tax rates would increase across the board — from 10 to 15 percent on the lowest end and 35 to 39.6 percent on the highest end. The child tax credit would be reduced from $1,000 to $500 per child and would no longer be refundable.
As for the tax cuts on those earning more than $250,000, their expiration would raise about $23 billion. Higher tax rates for all capital gains and dividends would raise about $25 billion. The estate tax — currently 35 percent on wealth over $5.12 million — would revert to 55 percent on wealth over $1 million, raising about $10 billion.
There are four other significant tax increases on the horizon. First, “accelerated depreciation” would end — a subsidy to business which artificially boosts the attractiveness of capital.
Second, Congress will consider another Band-Aid for the “alternative minimum tax” — an arbitrary limit on loopholes. If not, the alternative minimum tax would expand from five million to 25 million households, raising their taxes by $3,700 on average.
Third, Obamacare will add new taxes of $23 billion, mostly from a payroll tax increase on high incomes. Fourth, Obama’s “payroll tax holiday” will expire, increasing taxes by $125 billion on all workers.
The problem is that we have massive deficits and debt. The White House estimates that revenues will cover only interest on the debt and “entitlement” spending in 2012. All other functions of government are being financed through borrowing.
It’s doubtful that enough of our elected officials have the courage to cut spending, so the rich are an attractive target. Politically, the GOP may be better off to join the president here. It wouldn’t raise much money, but it would show willingness to compromise and remove a big distraction.
Then, we can focus on the critical choice: big spending cuts versus big middle-income tax increases to close the budget chasm caused by our elected officials.
Ambrose's "Undaunted Courage"
To contact us Click HERE
This summer, I enjoyed another book from Stephen Ambrose. Undaunted Courage was a terrific read, especially as we were traveling out west this summer, through many of the lands he was describing. As is usual with Ambrose, it was an easy read, thorough but not dense, and a ton of interesting stuff to learn.
Some of the nuggets:
It's noteworthy that Jefferson wanted the new land to be divided into new states, rather than colonies of the new country. I had never thought of that previously, but that was a novel decision.
Likewise, I didn't know that it was Lewis who pushed and formally proposed a co-command with Clark-- and led the expedition in that manner, even though it was not officially approved by Congress. The idea was really good, given the men involved. But it was not intuitively obvious and met with resistance.
It's interesting that Jefferson feared (and generally argued against) a strong central government-- most notably, with the "separation of church and state". In such cases, he was not necessarily opposed to a given policy, but rather, the idea that it would be implemented at the federal (vs. state) level. With the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis/Clark expedition, Jefferson violated his norms to pursue larger goals.
As in Band of Brothers, Ambrose depicts people who engage in a lot of immoral behavior, particularly in the realms of drinking and sexual ethics. (At one point, Ambrose notes that alcohol was the most important compensation on the trip!) We're often told that the old days, in America, were much more moral. But from the drinking and debauchery in post-colonial America (e.g., p. 15) to the antics in World War II of our young soldiers, it is difficult to imagine that as anything but a false remembrance of times past.
Sexual immorality among the Indians was roughly equivalent, but often driven by different if not higher motives. Many of the tribes traded their wives freely-- and really interesting, they wanted their wives to sleep with the white men since they were seen as magical. These Indians believed that the magic could be communicated/spread through sex. Instead, it was venereal diseases that got spread! (On p. 303 he says there is a debate over whether syphilis started with the Indians or the Americans.)
Ambrose notes what slavery did to the character of whites, particularly the children of slave-owners (p. 18-21). Speaking of bad public policy: Ambrose's treatment of the Whiskey Rebellion (p. 23-24) reminded me of King Solomon's unjust tax/spend policies, redistributing monies from one part of the country to another. It is an underemphasized part of American (economic) history-- that politicians often chose policy solutions which benefited one region over another.
Ambrose makes an interesting point that government had to be limited in the old days (p. 39) given the limited technology and ability to communicate, given the vast amount of land in play. More broadly, he notes that "Since the birth of civilization, there had been almost no changes in commerce or transportation...the Americans of 1801 had more gadgets, better weapons, a superior knowledge of geography, and other advantages over the ancients, but they could not move goods or themselves or information by land or water any faster than had the Greeks and Romans." Wow!
Finally, I was amazed at Lewis' pre-expedition life-- and his really close, father/son-like relationship with Jefferson, as his right-hand man and fellow bachelor roommate in the White House. And I was shocked to learn about Lewis' sad post-expedition life. he was unable to discipline himself to put the journals in publishable form. And he repeatedly tried to commit suicide before succeeding just three years after his return.
His suicide and especially his failure to get the journals published hurt his reputation and limited the now-amazing level of praise for their exploits (p. 526-531). It was nearly a century afterwards that scholars began to emphasize the importance of the famous expedition that we now take for granted, historically.
Some of the nuggets:
It's noteworthy that Jefferson wanted the new land to be divided into new states, rather than colonies of the new country. I had never thought of that previously, but that was a novel decision.
Likewise, I didn't know that it was Lewis who pushed and formally proposed a co-command with Clark-- and led the expedition in that manner, even though it was not officially approved by Congress. The idea was really good, given the men involved. But it was not intuitively obvious and met with resistance.
It's interesting that Jefferson feared (and generally argued against) a strong central government-- most notably, with the "separation of church and state". In such cases, he was not necessarily opposed to a given policy, but rather, the idea that it would be implemented at the federal (vs. state) level. With the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis/Clark expedition, Jefferson violated his norms to pursue larger goals.
As in Band of Brothers, Ambrose depicts people who engage in a lot of immoral behavior, particularly in the realms of drinking and sexual ethics. (At one point, Ambrose notes that alcohol was the most important compensation on the trip!) We're often told that the old days, in America, were much more moral. But from the drinking and debauchery in post-colonial America (e.g., p. 15) to the antics in World War II of our young soldiers, it is difficult to imagine that as anything but a false remembrance of times past.
Sexual immorality among the Indians was roughly equivalent, but often driven by different if not higher motives. Many of the tribes traded their wives freely-- and really interesting, they wanted their wives to sleep with the white men since they were seen as magical. These Indians believed that the magic could be communicated/spread through sex. Instead, it was venereal diseases that got spread! (On p. 303 he says there is a debate over whether syphilis started with the Indians or the Americans.)
Ambrose notes what slavery did to the character of whites, particularly the children of slave-owners (p. 18-21). Speaking of bad public policy: Ambrose's treatment of the Whiskey Rebellion (p. 23-24) reminded me of King Solomon's unjust tax/spend policies, redistributing monies from one part of the country to another. It is an underemphasized part of American (economic) history-- that politicians often chose policy solutions which benefited one region over another.
Ambrose makes an interesting point that government had to be limited in the old days (p. 39) given the limited technology and ability to communicate, given the vast amount of land in play. More broadly, he notes that "Since the birth of civilization, there had been almost no changes in commerce or transportation...the Americans of 1801 had more gadgets, better weapons, a superior knowledge of geography, and other advantages over the ancients, but they could not move goods or themselves or information by land or water any faster than had the Greeks and Romans." Wow!
Finally, I was amazed at Lewis' pre-expedition life-- and his really close, father/son-like relationship with Jefferson, as his right-hand man and fellow bachelor roommate in the White House. And I was shocked to learn about Lewis' sad post-expedition life. he was unable to discipline himself to put the journals in publishable form. And he repeatedly tried to commit suicide before succeeding just three years after his return.
His suicide and especially his failure to get the journals published hurt his reputation and limited the now-amazing level of praise for their exploits (p. 526-531). It was nearly a century afterwards that scholars began to emphasize the importance of the famous expedition that we now take for granted, historically.
We're Back and ready to Rank... New Republican Rankings for August 7, 2007... Where do they stand?
To contact us Click HERE
Well it's been a while and definitely a long time since the last promised update in rankings. Most of you already know the major changes that have taken place since the last ranking came out. Just for a brief overview of the two biggest happenings...
- John McCain had a major meltdown in his campaign when three top campaign leaders, including the Campaign Manager and the Lead Strategist resigned from the campaign.
- Jim Gilmore dropped out of the race and no one has really missed him.
Now for the good stuff...
Republican Presidential Candidate Rankings as of August 7, 2008 (Pre-Ames Straw Poll)
1. Mitt Romney
Well Mitt's use of the almighty dollar puts him at the front of the pack in Iowa and for that case in the race itself. Romney has made sure he is not unknown going into the straw poll. But is Mitt really how Iowa wants? Polls have shown that Romney's message has just not spoke loudly in Iowa. Not nearly as much as his name and face. Lets face the facts, Mitt Romney cleans up well and is an extremely good public speaker and puts out a great image on television looking like a family man who is just another average American, the only part of that, that will come back to bit him is in the Straw Poll and Caucus the voters get to see the candidates in real life and in real life Mitt does not come off anywhere as good as he does on television. Money and popularity have gotten Romney to the top spot, but it is not likely that he will take Iowa just to the fact that Iowans have through out history filtered the phonies out of the race. And that's all Romney is. A pretty talking head phony.
2. Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee has been on an unbelievable tear as of late. It looked as if he was about to take a big hit after the second quarter fundraising figures came out. Huckabee had finished in the bottom 3 of Republicans and it looked like his campaign was about to go into panic mode. However Mike had different plans. Just as the name of his latest book, his campaign has risen From Hope to Higher Ground. After the ABC News debate from Iowa it seems as if Huckabee has an excellent chance at not only placing highly at the straw poll, but even winning the poll in Ames. During the Iowa/ABC News Debate Dr. Frank Luntz (one of the nations top political pollsters) used the new real-time dial technology that let's voters give an immediate feedback to what they think about what the candidate is saying. Dr. Luntz said that Huckabee's numbers went through the roof when attacked the Suadi royal family and their involvement and funding of terrorism with money coming from US oil revenue and that America needs to be independent on energy within 10 years. Read this small portion of a Politico.com article...
"At the session’s start, only one participant picked Huckabee as the candidate he or she wanted to win. Nine chose former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, eight were for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, five were for the absent Fred Thompson, two were for McCain, and the remaining candidates were picked by one or none.
But when it was over, Huckabee had 14 votes, compared with 10 for Romney, three for Giuliani, one for Fred Thompson and one for Rep. Duncan Hunter of California."
Check out the entire article by clicking here.
This is all great news for the Huckabee camp and he is an a great position to be catapulted to the front of the pack after the Iowa Straw Poll this Saturday.
3-t. Rudy Giuliani
The man who started out the campaign as the favorite to sweep through the primaries with out much resistance has had a much rougher time than expected and has fallen from his top spot. He refuses to get down and play primary politics. Giuliani seems to think that meeting voters one on one in Iowa and even on a big scale by way of the Ames Straw Poll and the September YouTube debate is too much work for him and not enough gain. Not only has Giuliani lost hundreds of thousands of potential votes by trying to play primary politics on a national level, he has alienated much of his support in Iowa which is THE most important state in the primaries for Republicans. Does anyone else remember what happened to the last big name candidate who tried to take his campaign to a national level months in advance and then got blown out in the primaries?
It was only four years ago when just that happened to the democrats original favorite, Howard Dean. Dean had money, a popular name, a message that many democrats were in too and so he thought he could skip the entire primary process that has elected our Presidents all through out history and get a seventh month head start on the general election.
I believe Rudy Giuliani will be wishing he would have learned the phrase "If you don't learn history, you are doomed to repeat it." Because it seems like Mayor Giuliani is totally clueless as to what is about to happen to his campaign in the primary states. And that is fail.
3-t. Fred Thompson
Time is running out for Fred Thompson. All depending on how the Ames Iowa Straw Poll turns out he could find himself losing a lot of his popularity. His name being on the ballot may actually hurt him. If he does not finish in the top two and loses to some one who is not Rudy Giulian or John McCain (which is very likely) he will begin to slip as "the candidate everyone wants". If Mike Huckabee wins the Straw Poll it will likely end the chances of Fred Thompson entering the campaign as the favorite. Right now he thrives on being the "true conservative" which is nothing but a myth. A Huckabee win at the Straw Poll would undoubtedly put Mike in the "top tier" and all it would take to find out that Huckabee is much more conservative than Fred is a few minutes on the internet. Not to mention Huckabee beats him out on experience and record. If Fred Thompson wants to be the Republican nominee, he better hope Huckabee has a bad showing at the Ames Straw Poll or he better jump in the race and try to spin his weak record to people. If he does not, his campaign will be nothing but a "what if" by the end of the month.
5. John McCain
As you saw above, McCain's campaign has taken hit, after hit, after hit and it is really starting to show. He has been declared the loser of ever debate, except for the first according to Dr. Frank Luntz, the Fox News pollster mentioned earlier in the rankings. It seems like Immigration (which if you might remember Republican Race '08 predicted it spoiling his chance at winning the nomination) has destroyed his campaign. He too has decided to skip the Iowa Straw Poll this Saturday, but his campaign had no real shot at showing well in the poll and so he backed out to have a reason for his poor showing. He did not fair well in 1999 in the Iowa Straw Poll and that was the beginning of the end of his presidential hopes in '99 and here we are in 2008 and we are near the end of the end of his presidential campaign this year. And once again the Iowa Straw Poll will show how little his support he really has.
6. Tom Tancredo
Who ever thought Tancredo would make it this far? In the last ranking he was ranked dead last behind Jim Gilmore. He has made a surge taking bold stances on not only immigration, but has widened his spectrum to taxes, Congresses high spending and even has a better grip on foreign policy and the War on Terror and Iraq. He has became more and more popular and is now the leader of "the new second tier" and he had an excellent 2nd quarter in fundraising and has used it to get his name out in Iowa. All depending on his showing in the Ames Straw Poll, Congressman Tancredo could be positioning him self as a leading candidate to be the VP nominee.
7. Duncan Hunter
Duncan Hunter has remained a solid name in the "second tier", but he hasn't really picked up a lot of ground. He did not perform well in fundraising and is not really gaining popularity, but he has been staying in about the same place in polls (around 6th-8th)
He has had two great showings at the last two debates and is still impressing and surprising people, but just like all the other candidates he will find out where it has put him in the eyes of the people after the Iowa Straw Poll.
8. Sam Brownback
Brownback has become the red headed step child of the group. He doesn't get any attention and in an attempt to get more attention he has constantly cried about other candidates and has on two attempts, blamed candidates for things they had nothing to do with (most recently the Huckabee camp for a supporters email). He has not been charming nearly as many Iowans as pundits thought he would. Instead he has become a big annoyance for everyone else in the race and has dropped into the attack mode attacking Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee and it has not helped him in the polls at all and according to Dr. Frank Luntz' real-time feedback dials voters have not liked what Sam Brownback has said about some of his fellow candidate and many did not approve of his campaigns attack phone calls to voters regarding Mitt Romney.
9. Tommy Thompson
Mr. Wisconsin is the only man who has remained in his post from the last ranking. Tommy has impressed many people on Health Care, if he would make that the main topic of his campaign he would probably be a lot higher in this ranking, but he has not played his card correctly and here he is, a spot away from dead last and only above Ron Paul.
Thompson has been performing better in the debates, but he still isn't "clicking" with voters and it shows. In most polls he is barely registering and in the ones he has he is no higher than 2%, with the exception of a few where voters mistake him for Fred Thompson.
Tommy's campaign will likely be over a week or two after the Straw Poll.
10. Ron Paul
Well I guess we'll see how many Ron Paul cronies read Republican Race '08! Dr. Paul has lost just about all credibility by resorting to the "neo-conservative" movement and take over of the Republican Party. That phase will end any chance he ever had of pulling an upset. It has been a phrase that has ended many "true conservatives" campaigns all across the nation in many republican states. Fact being you don't call your potential voters a name just about all of them hate to be called. You can not alienate voters and expect to win and Ron Paul has done just that. Alienated Republican voters. You would think a man as educated as Dr. Paul would know how to speak to voters, but yet he doesn't and that lands him in dead-last.
We will update the rankings after the Ames Straw Poll this Saturday. Please check back within the next day or two or subscribe by email (just put your email in the box above to the right and click submit) We will have new articles coming regularly.
To those of you who want to know... I have been moving to my new apartment, in a new state and that has consumed a lot of my time the last month and a half and I have not had a chance to hit the blog on a regular basis.
But Good News... I'M BACK and Republican Race '08 is back to being a regularly updated web site.
Stay tuned for the best coverage on the 2008 Republican Race for the White House!
- John McCain had a major meltdown in his campaign when three top campaign leaders, including the Campaign Manager and the Lead Strategist resigned from the campaign.
- Jim Gilmore dropped out of the race and no one has really missed him.
Now for the good stuff...
Republican Presidential Candidate Rankings as of August 7, 2008 (Pre-Ames Straw Poll)
1. Mitt Romney
Well Mitt's use of the almighty dollar puts him at the front of the pack in Iowa and for that case in the race itself. Romney has made sure he is not unknown going into the straw poll. But is Mitt really how Iowa wants? Polls have shown that Romney's message has just not spoke loudly in Iowa. Not nearly as much as his name and face. Lets face the facts, Mitt Romney cleans up well and is an extremely good public speaker and puts out a great image on television looking like a family man who is just another average American, the only part of that, that will come back to bit him is in the Straw Poll and Caucus the voters get to see the candidates in real life and in real life Mitt does not come off anywhere as good as he does on television. Money and popularity have gotten Romney to the top spot, but it is not likely that he will take Iowa just to the fact that Iowans have through out history filtered the phonies out of the race. And that's all Romney is. A pretty talking head phony.2. Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee has been on an unbelievable tear as of late. It looked as if he was about to take a big hit after the second quarter fundraising figures came out. Huckabee had finished in the bottom 3 of Republicans and it looked like his campaign was about to go into panic mode. However Mike had different plans. Just as the name of his latest book, his campaign has risen From Hope to Higher Ground. After the ABC News debate from Iowa it seems as if Huckabee has an excellent chance at not only placing highly at the straw poll, but even winning the poll in Ames. During the Iowa/ABC News Debate Dr. Frank Luntz (one of the nations top political pollsters) used the new real-time dial technology that let's voters give an immediate feedback to what they think about what the candidate is saying. Dr. Luntz said that Huckabee's numbers went through the roof when attacked the Suadi royal family and their involvement and funding of terrorism with money coming from US oil revenue and that America needs to be independent on energy within 10 years. Read this small portion of a Politico.com article..."At the session’s start, only one participant picked Huckabee as the candidate he or she wanted to win. Nine chose former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, eight were for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, five were for the absent Fred Thompson, two were for McCain, and the remaining candidates were picked by one or none.
But when it was over, Huckabee had 14 votes, compared with 10 for Romney, three for Giuliani, one for Fred Thompson and one for Rep. Duncan Hunter of California."
Check out the entire article by clicking here.
This is all great news for the Huckabee camp and he is an a great position to be catapulted to the front of the pack after the Iowa Straw Poll this Saturday.
3-t. Rudy Giuliani
The man who started out the campaign as the favorite to sweep through the primaries with out much resistance has had a much rougher time than expected and has fallen from his top spot. He refuses to get down and play primary politics. Giuliani seems to think that meeting voters one on one in Iowa and even on a big scale by way of the Ames Straw Poll and the September YouTube debate is too much work for him and not enough gain. Not only has Giuliani lost hundreds of thousands of potential votes by trying to play primary politics on a national level, he has alienated much of his support in Iowa which is THE most important state in the primaries for Republicans. Does anyone else remember what happened to the last big name candidate who tried to take his campaign to a national level months in advance and then got blown out in the primaries?It was only four years ago when just that happened to the democrats original favorite, Howard Dean. Dean had money, a popular name, a message that many democrats were in too and so he thought he could skip the entire primary process that has elected our Presidents all through out history and get a seventh month head start on the general election.
I believe Rudy Giuliani will be wishing he would have learned the phrase "If you don't learn history, you are doomed to repeat it." Because it seems like Mayor Giuliani is totally clueless as to what is about to happen to his campaign in the primary states. And that is fail.
3-t. Fred Thompson
Time is running out for Fred Thompson. All depending on how the Ames Iowa Straw Poll turns out he could find himself losing a lot of his popularity. His name being on the ballot may actually hurt him. If he does not finish in the top two and loses to some one who is not Rudy Giulian or John McCain (which is very likely) he will begin to slip as "the candidate everyone wants". If Mike Huckabee wins the Straw Poll it will likely end the chances of Fred Thompson entering the campaign as the favorite. Right now he thrives on being the "true conservative" which is nothing but a myth. A Huckabee win at the Straw Poll would undoubtedly put Mike in the "top tier" and all it would take to find out that Huckabee is much more conservative than Fred is a few minutes on the internet. Not to mention Huckabee beats him out on experience and record. If Fred Thompson wants to be the Republican nominee, he better hope Huckabee has a bad showing at the Ames Straw Poll or he better jump in the race and try to spin his weak record to people. If he does not, his campaign will be nothing but a "what if" by the end of the month.5. John McCain
As you saw above, McCain's campaign has taken hit, after hit, after hit and it is really starting to show. He has been declared the loser of ever debate, except for the first according to Dr. Frank Luntz, the Fox News pollster mentioned earlier in the rankings. It seems like Immigration (which if you might remember Republican Race '08 predicted it spoiling his chance at winning the nomination) has destroyed his campaign. He too has decided to skip the Iowa Straw Poll this Saturday, but his campaign had no real shot at showing well in the poll and so he backed out to have a reason for his poor showing. He did not fair well in 1999 in the Iowa Straw Poll and that was the beginning of the end of his presidential hopes in '99 and here we are in 2008 and we are near the end of the end of his presidential campaign this year. And once again the Iowa Straw Poll will show how little his support he really has.6. Tom Tancredo
Who ever thought Tancredo would make it this far? In the last ranking he was ranked dead last behind Jim Gilmore. He has made a surge taking bold stances on not only immigration, but has widened his spectrum to taxes, Congresses high spending and even has a better grip on foreign policy and the War on Terror and Iraq. He has became more and more popular and is now the leader of "the new second tier" and he had an excellent 2nd quarter in fundraising and has used it to get his name out in Iowa. All depending on his showing in the Ames Straw Poll, Congressman Tancredo could be positioning him self as a leading candidate to be the VP nominee.7. Duncan Hunter
Duncan Hunter has remained a solid name in the "second tier", but he hasn't really picked up a lot of ground. He did not perform well in fundraising and is not really gaining popularity, but he has been staying in about the same place in polls (around 6th-8th)He has had two great showings at the last two debates and is still impressing and surprising people, but just like all the other candidates he will find out where it has put him in the eyes of the people after the Iowa Straw Poll.
8. Sam Brownback
Brownback has become the red headed step child of the group. He doesn't get any attention and in an attempt to get more attention he has constantly cried about other candidates and has on two attempts, blamed candidates for things they had nothing to do with (most recently the Huckabee camp for a supporters email). He has not been charming nearly as many Iowans as pundits thought he would. Instead he has become a big annoyance for everyone else in the race and has dropped into the attack mode attacking Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee and it has not helped him in the polls at all and according to Dr. Frank Luntz' real-time feedback dials voters have not liked what Sam Brownback has said about some of his fellow candidate and many did not approve of his campaigns attack phone calls to voters regarding Mitt Romney.9. Tommy Thompson
Mr. Wisconsin is the only man who has remained in his post from the last ranking. Tommy has impressed many people on Health Care, if he would make that the main topic of his campaign he would probably be a lot higher in this ranking, but he has not played his card correctly and here he is, a spot away from dead last and only above Ron Paul.Thompson has been performing better in the debates, but he still isn't "clicking" with voters and it shows. In most polls he is barely registering and in the ones he has he is no higher than 2%, with the exception of a few where voters mistake him for Fred Thompson.
Tommy's campaign will likely be over a week or two after the Straw Poll.
10. Ron Paul
Well I guess we'll see how many Ron Paul cronies read Republican Race '08! Dr. Paul has lost just about all credibility by resorting to the "neo-conservative" movement and take over of the Republican Party. That phase will end any chance he ever had of pulling an upset. It has been a phrase that has ended many "true conservatives" campaigns all across the nation in many republican states. Fact being you don't call your potential voters a name just about all of them hate to be called. You can not alienate voters and expect to win and Ron Paul has done just that. Alienated Republican voters. You would think a man as educated as Dr. Paul would know how to speak to voters, but yet he doesn't and that lands him in dead-last.We will update the rankings after the Ames Straw Poll this Saturday. Please check back within the next day or two or subscribe by email (just put your email in the box above to the right and click submit) We will have new articles coming regularly.
To those of you who want to know... I have been moving to my new apartment, in a new state and that has consumed a lot of my time the last month and a half and I have not had a chance to hit the blog on a regular basis.
But Good News... I'M BACK and Republican Race '08 is back to being a regularly updated web site.
Stay tuned for the best coverage on the 2008 Republican Race for the White House!
Kaydol:
Yorumlar (Atom)