Again I agree. People forget how low prices from a consumer point of view raise our standard of living. The benefit of freedom to trade goes both ways. We would lose the low price and wide availability of widgets and happy meal toys. They would lose their second largest customer, cash flow they depend on and have widespread factory shutdowns and layoffs with a regime that derives its consent only from the security and continuous economic growth it can provide. The damage of ending that relationship economically goes both ways. I think we could withstand the disruption and resulting economic depression better than they could, but not by much and not with any certainty.
Crafty, I will get back to you on Nov.3 with more about this. There are some lousy polls out today. Basically we still have conservatives running even in blue states which is amazing and Dems getting crushed in red states.
Losing NY is normal. Merkowski is a Republican so RINOs too are playing a role in the divisiveness. Merkowski and Castle lost but didn't accept the results of the process that got them there. We have been losing to Harry Reid since 1986. There are some serious drawbacks to having a person like Castle win in Delaware - to say he is a Republican and then vote against our interests 50% of the time - it gives future Dem candidates nationwide bipartisan cover for those positions and votes. Castle lost because of lack of voter support, not some back room party decision. Only a back room deal could have prevented the primary challenge, hardly preferable.
Taking the fight to both parties was the only way to a) get any positive change, and b) disrupt the argument that this is nothing but a 2006 or 2008 rematch, our reckless spenders against theirs.
The intra-party squabble fear is valid, but unavoidable. Taking the fight to them means you piss a few people off, but what was the alternative? Without the rise up of the grass roots, the so-called tea party, we would 2-6 more years Pelosi-Obama leftist business as usual and maybe the collapse of the republic. Because it was all grassroots and no leadership, we have some very inexperienced candidates. The damage done to the old Republican party by this uprising overall is a very good and necessary thing. The brand name is partially repaired (being a Republican now means something) and we will have a whole lot more good candidates available at all levels in the future because of the events of this year.
"Frankly I haven't seen any great exodus or rebellion amongst MSM."
Not a great rebellion, I think they moved slightly from worship and celebration to just traditional bias in coverage and questioning as he moved from Messiah to 50% disapproval. They are covering the fact that he is in deep trouble now even if the motive is just to get people motivated to come out and support him, and they are covering the dismal economy somewhat but not like they would if it was a Republican administration.
The irregularities in the negotiating and passing of health care were maybe covered and questioned by the MSM I think, were they not? Meet the Press guests etc. were questioned about the Cornhuisker Kickback, the closed door negotiations and 'deeming' a bill passed, Sunday night votes etc.
One indicator is the Letterman Leno type shows. Letterman actually said around election and inauguration time that he had no idea what to poke fun at now, and then went on with old Bush is dumb jokes and Palin mockery. It took maybe a year and a half before I saw him tell a derogatory joke about anything to do with Obama, but they mix some in now.
Didn't Colbert or Stewart start doing a few rips on Obama, his advisers and czars? I doubt if you will find one of those during the summer of 2008.
Newspapers sometimes seem to not care that their product is aimed at only half the market. Now facing bankruptcy and with plenty of negative administration stories available, we at least see some opposition stories and columns IMO.
BBG, This is a great post. We have miniscule warming. We have no idea what part of that is attributable to humans, but roughly within the margin of error of our ability to measure global temperatures. We have no data we can trust. And so we publicize the wildest claims and decide to shut down our economies and declare war on each other.
Instead we should use our resources wisely and cleanly while we re-create the conditions of economic freedom that we know unleash human creativity.
Seems to me that like nuclear 'waste', e-waste could be condensed and stored safely as a future resource until the technology to safely mine it for resources catches up. The original point remains, we pass production restriction laws here and then consume the same product produced elsewhere. That saves the earth nothing, eliminates a US business, costs the consumer and enriches our competitor/ enemy. In this case - China.
What bugs me most about ordinary recycling is that we think we save energy and the earth by requiring huge diesel trucks to drive regularly down all our streets, and charge us for it.
Have no fears Crafty. This is a major shift of the landscape no matter what the final score is. RINOs ran with, not against the so-called tea party movement. McCain moved to the right instead holding his ground. Lindsey Graham backed out of cap trade sponsorship and he isn't up until next cycle. Fiorini said she welcomed Palin's endorsement. It was the success of the inexperienced tea party newcomers in the primaries that stole the whole campaign theme from the Democrats, which was to run against giving power back to the people who got us in this mess. They have been mumbling with total incoherence ever since.
If Sharron Angle wins, the takedown of the majority leader in his own state is the cover story, and it won't be by some wishy-washy-sounding Dem-lite. The campaign was waged directly against the major policies he supported. The sound byte isn't some lofty better tomorrow theme, it was 'man up Harry Reid, these entitlements need addressing'.
If Reid wins, then the powerful majority leader barely held his own seat against a neophyte. Hardly a victory.
Obama needs R's to take the house. A bunch of scared Dems with a 1 vote margin won't give him cover for everything sure to go wrong for him. When the moveon.org recount artists finished stealing the 60th vote in the senate, Al Franken, they lost their bogeyman. Not George Bush, not Rush Limbaugh, not Republican senators blocking votes, nothing stopped them from doing whatever they wanted. So they did and we are now able to hold them accountable.
It is not just our side reading the polls this way. Gibbs gave away what he sees in the polls with a comment about how their wins in 2006 and 2008 were so widespread that they now have too many members defending seats (as Democrats to defend a liberal agenda) that are a mis-match in these (conservative, heartland) districts and states.
Look at Indiana. Look at North Dakota. They had no business trying to sell this agenda in those locations. For a long time moderate Dems had carved out a thoughtful tack in states were heavily conservative. But not possible with a Pelosi-Obama full speed ahead agenda. Evan Bayh saw it first. Then Byron Dorgan. "In his statement, Dorgan said his retirement was borne out of the desire to spend more time with his family." http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0110/In_shocker_Dorgan_announces_retirement.html The Republican now leads by almost 50 points in this open Dem seat. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/nd/north_dakota_senate_hoeven_vs_potter-1419.html In Indiana, it is almost 20 points.
Look at Wisconsin. Feingold is a legend. Down by 7. Colorado is a hugely indicative battleground state. Obama won Colorado by 9 points. Here is the latest Ken Buck ad, gives voice to both conservatives and independents:
The real problem is that if this turns out to be true, there still is so little policy change that can be accomplished quickly.
The real test in this campaign was about 6 months ago. When they finished passing health care they thought people would breathe a sigh of relief and then jump on-board. The popular President will come to your district and support you if you support him. Instead the polling kept getting worse.
The other test was the economy. We pumped $3 trillion of crude, Keynesian deficit stimulus into this economy. That should at least mask some of the underlying problems employers and investors face, yet unemployment stayed near 10% and the new taxes of Jan.1 and health care haven't even kicked in yet.
These policies are tied to failure. After Nov. 2, we are still in an election year with the Presidential talk and candidates breaking out soon. We will have divided government, with momentum on the issues and a crucial new election cycle looming. Their side will no longer control the debate. Neither side will control the senate in terms of 60 votes. If popular legislation gets through both chambers, these will not be easy or cost-free vetoes for a man presumably seeking reelection.
2012 is a big test for the senate as well. That is the 6 year mark for the 2006 sweep. Blue senators in red states know that. They are far more likely to triangulate than Obama. That is the story i would watch.
First a reply to the Pledge post above in this thread: The new pledge is not "Trust Us, Version 2.0" in the sense that these promises were made after the polls already were showing 'certain' victory. So I read the pledge as a promise to themselves to govern in a principled fashion, made publicly so as to deliberately be held accountable. In other words, they are not trying to win - they already have that based on the mis-direction of their opponents - they are trying to make this win in November mean something in January.
I would note that the pledge was largely ignored by the public and the media, but it will come back very quickly if they veer away from the promises they made. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The examiner is running a series on the way forward for the new congress on various issues this week. This first one is on repeal and replace healthcare. This could also go in healthcare politics but I post it more as addressing the larger question about incremental strategies today for principled governance - and look forward to their other installments.
* Stop medical lawsuit abuse: Trial lawyers kept medical tort reform out of Obamacare despite the fact such provisions could save at least $200 billion in unnecessary annual health care costs. Trial lawyers made sure Obamacare did include provisions encouraging state attorneys general to outsource litigation against health care providers to ambulance-chasing trial lawyers. The new Congress should put tort reform into health care reform and take the trial lawyers out of it.
* Abortion funding: Congress can and should also permanently bar Obamacare from ever using federal tax dollars to pay for abortions. Not using tax dollars to pay for abortions is one of the few measures on which opponents and defenders of the procedure agree, but more is required to make the ban effective than a meaningless presidential executive order.
* Burdens on small business: Congress should quickly challenge Obama to veto legislation repealing the Obamacare requirement that small businesses fill out and file 1099 Forms for every vendor with whom they have significant dealings.
* Wheelchair tax: Do Obamacrats really want to face a 2012 re-election campaign after voting to tax someone's wheelchair? We don't think so.
* Employer mandate: However it is ultimately replaced, the new health care reform to come should end the tax breaks that make employers the main source of health care insurance coverage. All Americans should have access to good health care insurance without worry they will be denied because of prior conditions. And they should be able to get their coverage from the provider they choose, wherever it is located.
* Individual mandate: Obamacare may be the first federal law in American history that requires every American to purchase a commercial product under penalty of law. If the Supreme Court has not already declared Obamacare's individual mandate unconstitutional, Congress should repeal it.
Repealing and replacing Obamacare must be done carefully and without undue haste. These recommendations are only the first steps, but they are the essential elements for all that follows.
Regarding the 33,000 calorie lady, we used to have freak shows at the state fair. Now we don't have the shows and they aren't called freaks anymore. Obesity in general raises moral, moral hazard and libertarian issues. One argument to legalize drugs was the law of natural consequences and learning. People can choose not to be a heroin addict if we allow that path and let people see where it leads. One consequence of the 33,000 calorie lady is that at some point she would lose her ability to hunt and gather. A self correcting problem. Enter public policies. As she becomes unable to function, the consequence is the opposite. We put her on public payroll and buy her more food. And healthcare, no matter the cost. In the name and spirit of being humane we took away the corrective mechanism that worked for tens of thousands of years.
Did I just read a Krugman column where the whole thing almost made sense and the facts were accurate? Our environmental standards caused the surrender of a crucial market to China.
I especially like the part where Krugman is shocked and disappointed that a murderous, tyrannical, totalitarian, dictatorial regime hasn't yet risen to the responsibilities of their superpower status. Who knew?
"China accounts for 97 percent of the world’s supply of rare earths, minerals that play an essential role in many high-technology products, including military equipment."
This Idaho editorial says that we closed our last rare earth mine for environmental risks that must not scare the Chinese:
"Fifteen years ago, the United States was the world’s largest producer of rare earth minerals. But the last major rare earth mine in the U.S. was closed in 2002. Last year China produced more than 97 percent of the world’s rare earth minerals even though it has only 36 percent of the world’s reserves."
Small point of learning here. When we think of passing a law to ban production of something here to save the earth but we know it will just be done by our competitors and enemies anyway, ask what is gained? Production of wind turbines and hybrid cars according to our EPA pose unacceptable environmental risks (because of the mining of rare earth elements). Once again, who knew that banning production here, buying it elsewhere and then subsidizing those purchases would cause a market imbalance threatening our leadership in technology and manufacturing.
I should add that I support 'urban mining' but the recycling of old computers and electronics as a primary strategy for developing new technologies sounds very much like a guarantee of never again being the leader in anything.
- Should fit in fine with this administration. I believed there was something more to her thinking and her non-strategies that we would find out later. No so. This book is about people in her early life.
"What has Condi Rice said about Clinton and Bamster?"
Rice said, "Nothing in this president's methods suggests this president is other than a defender of America's interests."
- Isn't that pretty much the way candidate Obama spoke of the Bush administration? (sarcasm)
CCP, interesting stuff. Your position on this surprised me. I learned some things from your posts and I have learned a lot from 5 rings as well. He says he isn't a doctor but his view has the endorsement of ours. We all (IMHO) should acknowledge that in certain extreme cases obesity is caused by bodily defect like gland/hormone appetite metabolism dysfunction. I think you are mainly talking about problems that set in after major weight gain. It seems to me that losing weight is a different matter than maintaining good weight. Curing chronic obesity on your own or with the quick fix plans is maybe as easy as getting your virginity back after a few years of shall we say undisciplined behavior. It sounds like the body of the obese sends false signals for more food than it needs. So this wound may have started as self-inflicted, but grows into an illness. I can buy that. From the point of view of the MD, prescribing a pill or a procedure may be a big part of the only strategy with a real chance for success.
But why is it so common for the masses was the question. Because the right choice seems so distant or inconvenient or difficult in the environment we live in. An environment of immediate gratification, widespread inactivity and the (almost) unlimited availability of lousy choices.
All of that said, I still side with the others as to the preponderance of obesity. As I posted regarding economics, decline is a choice.
After my first full week of white shirt, dark tie and suit type work as a young adult I felt exhausted, but with nearly no exercise. First order getting off non-physical work may be to go have a drink. Add the social side to that and you find that people like to go out, which mostly means eat and drink. After a drink or two and you don't crave exercise, you crave food. Eat to excess and you still don't crave the exercise you missed. More likely that person ends up on the couch at home until they start thinking about more food and then go to bed with a full stomach and still no exercise.
Add parenting to that. Stay home more and life revolves around the kitchen. Drive the kids to soccer, tennis, scouts, you name it. Cheer and support them all you want but you still end up tired, hungry and thirsty without exercise.
Crafty at some point went from white collar training to this very disciplined and physical career choice. In my case I had a very strong involvement in more than one sport. My decision to keep going in those sports as a young adult kept me with immediate feedback from opponents if and when i lose a step, and that kept me coming beck to reasonable levels of fitness for a number of decades. It is easy to see how others without an interest in a sport or exercise could start to slide.
For the poor it gets even worse as I have previously posted. You are paid for your unproductivity, paid to try to get a note from your doctor that you are incapable of substantial economic gain, paid to have more children - literally, and then given a virtually unlimited food card good at all grocers without supervision.
I don't buy that people are unaware when this is happening to them. People know they had to replace their wardrobe every time they grew another size.
It comes back to what 5 rings wrote: "define choice"
Yes. That is exactly the nut of the matter. The right choice might not have seemed like it was one of the choices offered. The choice maybe seemed to be go to the bar or drink at home or at friends' houses.. Choosing between the all you eat buffet or super-size fast food. It was only 39 cents extra to super-size, batter value, why not? But those weren't really the only choices. Go to the casino or read at home. Watch television or pop in a movie. Hire to have the lawn mowed or move to a place where they take care of that etc. Now we have video game and internet addiction to add to all of that. Some have a spouse who is a great cook but pushes the eating agenda even further to the top. The right choice didn't always seem to be on the menu. Push away from the table. Portion your lunch and build it at home. We can make exceptions for all people with a bodily or medical defect, but for the rest - choices were made along the way. A choice not to do what it takes to stay reasonably fit. A choice not to push away from the table when you knew that really was enough. No one is saying easy choices if everything in your environment is pulling you the other direction. Sometimes not obvious choices. But they were choices that needed to be made to stay in any kind of shape. Otherwise, decline of your health and fitness is your choice. (MHO)
CCP hits another home run: "By the way what is Condi Rice doing praising Clinton and Bamster? I guess she wants another job."
I was just going to say she is selling a book. I know she wants foreign policy to be non-partisan and the diplomats are always less hawkish than the conservative candidates and like Ge. Powell we don't really know her politics, but CCP nailed it. She is the next Sec. of State, possibly very soon.
Obama wanted very much to have one or two Republicans in his large cabinet and they need to be in places where they can't hurt him. We know Gates is leaving. We don't know Hillary is leaving, but is there enough writing on the wall? Condi would be perfect for him politically and not harm his agenda one bit.
"I agree that he does not have the executive experience, and that is often a deal-killer. I hope his other attributes make up for it,"
First I think we call it 2 sets of rules. Obama was a neighborhood activist, not a problem!
There is no perfectly positioned candidate that is going to appear this time so looking closely at each of these choices is extremely important. These governors come in and study hard on national and especially foreign policy where they have no experience, while congressional members often have not governed or led a major organization. Romney I think has the most executive experience but part of that was to usher in new government health care. Given imperfect choices, I will take a candidate who is high on character, intellect and communications ability with clear, consistent and conservative stands on the issues over one who governed based on political shrewdness but without consistent, guiding principles.
Interesting note that seemed to get lost is that Bill Clinton has been out there supporting Democrats. Makes sense that he would go to places where the Clintons are popular. Also true that politics is pay back and to buy favors forward. Kind of a tough observation follows that he is only supporting candidates that backed Hillary.
Bill Clinton back out campaigning 'for everybody that helped Hillary run for president' against Obama
"Speculation about Hillary Clinton's continued presidential ambitions is rife. Husband Bill is back on the campaign trail, offering thanks to those who backed her in 2008 – and laying the foundations for another try in 2016."(?) [the story is theirs, the question mark on the year is mine.]
It will be strange governance and more difficult to assess blame if/when Republicans take the House, close in on the Senate and then nothing much gets accomplished. As VDH put it, Obama doesn't mind that his agenda cost so many of his colleagues their jobs partly because of his narcissism and because:
"a sober reflection that a Republican Congress in 2011-12 can be blamed for cutting the “needy” while Obama can take credit for the upturn that will surely follow once business grasps his socialist agenda is stalled." ---- Just heard Gibbs say the people want to see the two parties to work together. But people aren't moving toward Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Marco Rubio for examples because they will work seamlessly with President Obama, they are voting against Harry Reid etc. because they did. ----
In the previous discussion in this thread, polls show Hispanic support weakening for Dems. Crafty wrote "because [they] failed to push amnesty hard enough".
True. And he is setting up the same ambivalence for gays. Dems are supposedly their ally yet he continues to mostly thwart the gay agenda based on polls and the old political reality of where else are they going to go. Answer to that is that if there is no meaningful difference on one issue, they may vote on some other issue like the economy or not vote at all. ----- Dems carried congress in the 2008 election by 10.2% in total votes where polling has the possibility of that margin flipping nearly that far this year the other direction. What changed? One theory: voters to change Washington, but not to change our country.
IIRC GM wrote that obesity is following the spread of wealth in China. Wealth has not yet spread across the countryside and I would doubt that healthcare enough even to check them for obesity has spread that far either. The proportion I think you are looking for would be 19 million out of how many checked and my curiosity would ask that out of the 19 million, how many are linked to newer wealth and how many are linked to poverty. In America I think that obesity link goes both ways. In China I doubt that coal miners, workers in the fields or kids in sweatshops are immersed in sugar and soda or suffering from inactivity.
Speaking of someone who could hold his own in a debate with The One, meet Prof. Hanson. Please set aside 37 minutes and watch/listen to this interview. Good questions with great answers on issues that that include Islam in Europe, defending Europe, the lack of a future for the E.U., Asia, Thomas Friedman's comments on China, the situation inside Mexico, California, the border, Russia, Iran, the possibility of taking out Iran's nuclear capability, etc.
Well informed, very clear thinking, logical, common sense answers and observations to wide ranging questions and issues today from around the globe.
The Republican rallying cry during this election season has been a promise to "repeal and replace" ObamaCare. The problem is that through at least 2012 President Obama would veto any law repealing his signature health-care legislation. What, then, can Republicans do in the next two years? Look to the states.
After November, more than 30 Republican governors (many newly elected) will have the opportunity to resist the legislation at the state level. They could refuse to implement the health-care exchanges that are the core of ObamaCare. Doing so would force the federal government to step in and run the exchanges for the states—a chore that would slow down federal implementation of ObamaCare but fail to provide any alternative solution to insurance coverage problems.
The more promising option is for governors to perform as much radical surgery as possible on the exchanges until a new Congress working with a different president can do something better. By offering their own market-friendly versions of exchanges, they will establish an alternative to ObamaCare and its one-size-fits-all health plans.
The feds may declare that these exchanges do not comply with federal rules and are not eligible for new federal subsidies beginning in 2014. But the Obama administration will be hard-pressed to find the resources to establish and run its own federal exchanges in time if enough states resist its dictates and appeal to their citizens with a better offer.
ObamaCare intends health-care exchanges to be a regulatory dragnet to trap insurers into offering a single government-prescribed set of health benefits. State-designed exchanges could, and should, do the opposite.
Any willing insurers already licensed to operate in a state should be able to offer plans. Their operating rules would focus on providing better information to consumers, rather than limiting the types of plans available. Exchanges should also enable easier allocation of private payments and public subsidies, simplify enrollment, and reduce transaction costs.
Once inside the exchange, consumers would be guaranteed the ability to renew their coverage without regard to changes in their health status, so long as they remain continuously insured. If individuals want to switch plans, they couldn't be hit with higher costs due to changes in health status as long as they stay within some baseline range of benefits that was largely equivalent to their previous plan. And a new Congress should make sure that consumers shopping in these market-based exchanges get the same tax advantages that employers do, eliminating the bias that now forces people to get coverage from their bosses.
Under this arrangement, there wouldn't be the incentive for gaming the system that exists under ObamaCare, which encourages forgoing coverage until one gets sick, or buying cheap policies and upgrading only after an illness strikes.
Of course, not everyone will be able to afford to purchase insurance in these exchanges. Poor people and those with major medical problems or chronic conditions that make them largely uninsurable would certainly need to be subsidized. But today we already subsidize many of these people through a patchwork of programs.
Taxpayers can provide targeted subsidies through expanded high-risk pools to cap out-of-pocket, risk-based premium costs for the most vulnerable. In the longer term, states could get waivers to "monetize" Medicaid medical benefits and allow these recipients to shop in the same exchanges. Recipients might well prefer a voucher option to Medicaid coverage that pays most providers half as much as private insurance and fails to deliver many of the benefits it promises. Subsidies should flow directly to consumers, rather than to the health plans as ObamaCare required.
The elements of these market-based exchanges are already buried deep inside ObamaCare. But they remain under a lethal dose of regulation that rules out every choice but those made by the bureaucrats working inside the president's "Office of Health Reform."
ObamaCare was not about fixing the insurance market. It was about seizing control of it. Thus it shouldn't be surprising that a new analysis by the Congressional Research Service says that states can use ObamaCare to erect a de facto single-payer system by simply excluding from their exchanges every plan but a state-run "public" plan. "There is no specific language in [the president's health plan] that would prohibit an exchange from denying certification to every private plan that applies," the analysis finds.
California is already headed down this road. Voters have opted for a "selective contracting" scheme in which a five-member board of unaccountable appointees will tightly control which insurers operate in the California exchange.
But other states, particularly Utah, are moving in the opposite direction with their own version of market-based exchanges before ObamaCare's regulations can catch up. The Utah Health Exchange is an Internet-based information portal that connects consumers to the information they need to make informed choices. In many cases, it allows them to buy insurance electronically.
Several other states are interested in establishing similar plans and daring the Obama administration to stop them. Replacing the command-and-control features of ObamaCare with a plan offering consumers a real marketplace is a change many people can start to believe in. And one Mr. Obama would be imprudent to oppose.
Messrs. Gottlieb and Miller are Resident Fellows at the American Enterprise Institute.
Important in these matters to not weaken the Presidency just because we have a bad one. The pre-oversight is the congressional authorization. The ongoing oversight may be the congressional appropriations that fund operations. Also we can have congressional review of actions taken by our military to expose past actions and influence the future ones, but still the Commander makes the real-time decision in war, not a committee. The ultimate oversight is that new elections here are always coming.
Very little good has come out of this Presidency other than the rise of opposition to them, but one thing good IMO is to just imagine the uproar of left activists and lamestream media if these unmanned drone attacks in Paki-Waziristan tribal villages were being conducted by Bush or other R. administration.
The 9/18/2001 authorization looks like it covers these strikes unless rescinded. After that we need to put some trust in the Commander in Chief in spite of the folly of who we last chose.
The real abuse was the threat or reality of siccing the IRS on political opponents, a much greater power than our military.
There are competing philosophies to defense and the war on terror (human caused disasters) to ague elsewhere and settle in the elections. There is surrender entirely and unilaterally as many far leftists prefer. There is the so-called Fortress-America view that some on the far right would like, meaning defend strongly here but end the missions outside our borders, and there is take the battle to the enemy. Even the far leftist Obama believed war in Afghanistan is necessary, which should mean strikes anywhere harboring terrorists who threaten America are necessary too, until another viewpoint wins over at least one branch.
Positives that I see at least from reading this: He is a consistent, common sense unapologetic conservative with the ability to articulate wise policies. He is an adult who has been on the scene for quite a time, not a newcomer. He is in leadership at a time when republicans stood united against Obamanomics , ObamaCare and ObamaDebt. No mindless follower, he opposed his party at all the right times it sounds, he voted against expansion of the federal government in Education, he voted against the new entitlement program and a bill supporting abortion rights. "Conservative of the Year" by Human Events in 2007" probably means he is conservative enough and pro-free-trade means he is on the pro-economic-growth side of an issue that sometimes divides conservatives.
The flip side of that, like with Bolton, Palin and others, is he so conservative that he cannot attract independents and moderates? I would say no, he will do fine being consistent and articulate as opposed to people like McCain and Romney who had to jump around on key issues. Dems could compete for the middle by nominating a moderate, fiscal conservative, strong America centrist - but that would be a good thing. Make my day.
Key factor missing IMO is executive experience. Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter (and FDR and so on) were governors. OTOH, Obama had none when elected, and nothing but a negative recin now. i would put an experienced House member in leadership on an equal footing with being a prominent senior senator. HRC and Obama were junior senators but so was JFK. Bush Sr and Truman were sitting VP's. Eisenhower general/war hero. In context, no one on either side today is running with a full set of credentials so that question will all be comparative.
"As Democrats and Republicans fight for control of Congress in next month's midterms, the former first lady and senator will be sitting it out...barred by convention and tradition from partisan political activity as America's top diplomat...
"I am not in any way involved in any of the political campaigns that are going on up to this midterm election," Clinton said last week." ----- She was answering a question I think no one was asking. Wow, does that sound like someone who will soon be attacking the failures of this administration!
Please, please please, moderate and sensible Democrats, pick someone other than BO or HRC in 2012.
Michael wrote: "Of all the perspective candidates for '12 that I see now, Mike Pence is my pick at this stage in the game. Very articulate, ultra-conservative, and very principled. I think he would make an excellent POTUS."
Thank you for posting that. I will add Mike Pence to my short list to consider for first choice, and for certain I will support him if he is nominated.
Reminds me of the smoking argument. It IS an addiction yet people quit everyday, so there is both choice and addiction. Food is as addicting i would think as a cigarette, probably more so because you always need to have some. People eat out of boredom, a routine and availability probably more than out of hunger. I think it is the deferred gratification argument. What do you want most versus what do you want now. Maybe you want a flat stomach and less load on yours knees, but what you want right now is to eat big, eat well, and eat often. I am definitely on the 'choice' side of this argument for most people and we know people make good and bad choices about all kinds of things. There are plenty of others where as the good doctor has pointed out, that it just won't ever happen and a staple in the stomach or a pill or other artificial solution is the best course of action.
Back to public policy and freedom, being out of shape is a lousy way to go through but shouldn't be illegal, shouldn't be decided by someone else and really isn't much of the government's business. When we turn to the government for health care is when someone else's personal behavior seems to become everyone's business - and that is mostly wrong IMO. Part of the problem is a consequence of wealth and part is tied to paying other people to do nothing and part has to so with so many people becoming wealthy enough that the cost of unlimited food is no issue. Either way, 25% of fresh foods get thrown out. I notice that friends who travel with expense accounts tend to eat excessively well. We have huge numbers of people who receive free food and have nothing but time available to consume it all because their productive activities were stopped by program eligibility requirements. How are they supposed to round up the will power to limit their diet to match their inactivity when nothing much else going on? Along with drug testing for welfare, we could put some limits on free food programs or change the structure of those programs for those who are unable to otherwise control their intake.
53 seats recaptured would be nice. If true, it makes a 106 vote swing- from 77 seats down to 29 seats up(?) or something like that. Too early though to start counting totals before elections. Send money instead and call people. As Obama used to say, get in their face, lol. Volunteer to be a poll judge. There will be important close races and we will no doubt slide back into recount wars again.
O'Donnell never should have spoken out against America's favorite pastime; not the business of a small and limited government. People should handle that decision on their own. Still, I like O'Donnell. You would think the opponent's flirt with Marxism would be worse for the country than a little youthful witchcraft.
If the momentum continues, the next races that need to swing are Calif. Senate (Boxer) and the MN Governor race.
Regarding likely voters and off-year elections, I honestly don't understand why someone rational would care about the Presidency but not enough about the congress to go out and vote. A no-show is a form of a no confidence vote. The lesser of two evils is still a very important decision. ----------- From BBG's link: Slavery Begins with Mandatory Volunteering Right Wing Extremists: Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Me Freedom is a Right, ( I like: Freedom is MY Entitlement Program)
"Disability means inability to engage in any SGA [substantial gainful activity] by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which...has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months."
Normally paid via cash card in addition to all other programs of eligibility. ------ My reason for posting was because of hundreds of personal observations of what I would consider to be abuse of the program. Already answered by CCP as to what kind of situation it puts the doctor in. One note from a doctor is worth 6k per year, year after year, and we pay for the doctor visit, and a taxi in some cases to get to the doctor.
Who is hurt most, the taxpayer or the recipient? I say the one who learns to end the search for productive accomplishment within their own mental and physical capability.
At first glance, the single-panel cartoon he drew for last Sunday seems benign. It is a bucolic scene imitating the best-selling children's book "Where's Waldo?" A grassy park is jammed with activity. Animals frolic. Children buy ice cream. Adults stroll and sunbathe. A caption reads: "Where's Muhammad?"
Miller's cartoon is clearly a satirical reference to the global furor that ensued in 2006 after a Danish newspaper invited cartoonists to draw the prophet Muhammad as they see him. After the cartoons were published, Muslims in many countries demonstrated against what they viewed as the lampooning of Islam's holiest figure.
"Della Ware" contacted The New York Times to report her experience contributing under a fictitious name and address ("12345 No Way") to the Obama campaign, while her contribution was rejected by the McCain campaign. Times reporter Michael Luo verified "Della Ware's" account and reported it online at the Times' campaign blog. But Luo missed the story's point... The Obama campaign is running a system that complicates the discovery of "something wrong." It has chosen to operate an online contribution system that facilitates illegal falsely sourced contributions, illegal foreign contributions and the evasion of contribution limits...
According to journalist Kenneth Timmerman, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently - in contrast not just with McCain but also with Hillary Clinton. Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign required US citizens living abroad to fax copies of their passports before it would accept donations. By contrast, foreign donors to Obama can just use credit cards and false addresses. - NY Post 10/27/2008
The author of that story just before the election wrote (on Powerline) he assumed it would be looked into after the election - but it wasn't.
Besides ignoring the 57% increase, Krugman says: "Health care reform, for the most part, hasn’t kicked in yet, so that can’t be it."
But Pelosi-Obama-Care coming already IS a job killer. So is Cap-Trade pending though without being passed. It inserts risk, cost and uncertainty into business expansion and investment decisions.
Current budget is roughly 2.5 trillion revenues in with $4 trillion out in federal government spending alone: a trillion and a half a year of deficit spending. Krugman says: "the key problem with economic policy in the Obama years: we never had the kind of fiscal expansion that might have created the millions of jobs we need." What would a large stimulus be to Krugman? 2.5 trillion revenues with $5 or 6 trillion in spending??
0.006 warming per decade is the total warming, not the man-made component much less the man made portion that could be eliminated with severe new laws. 100 years and well within the margin of error, all I can conclude is how stable and resilient the nature of our planet is.
New Zealand is interesting to me. I can judge warming (or lack thereof) here with my own eyes and exposed skin, but an update from the far corner of the earth gives another perspective. I think NZ was a subject within warming scare movies (please be ready to evacuate!). Also interesting that the 'adjusted', wildly exaggerated figure is still less than one degree per century during this brief period of relying on fossil fuels. It might be more accurate to say we don't know how to measure the temperature of New Zealand now, much less the globe, or to pretend we have 100 year accuracy in any of that, and if we did that would still be too small a sample of time to conclude very much of anything. -----------
"There’s a litany of excuses. The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) claims New Zealand has been warming at 0.92°C per 100 years. But when some independent minded chaps in New Zealand graphed the raw NZ data, they found that the thermometers show NZ has only warmed by a statistically non-significant 0.06°C. They asked for answers and got nowhere, until they managed to get the light of legal pressure onto NIWA to force it to reply honestly. Reading between the lines, it’s obvious NIWA can’t explain or defend the adjustments."
The techniques that I would consider reasonable to extract information from a known terrorist to disrupt a planned, major terror act are far too graphic to post on this family friendly site. I would distinguish anything to do with mass murder, genocide or suicide bombing from the rules of criminal law enforcement as we once knew it. Besides the casualties of the act and the terror infliction on society, it is not possible to punish the suicide bomber after the fact.
GM, This article is very helpful to understand their thinking and the criteria they use. It answers one of my questions regarding the planting of the device. I disagree slightly with their thinking.
If my private car is parked in a public location or close to the street in my driveway and someone without permission is seen climbing under it to attach something to it, pipe bomb, etc, my reasonable expectation is that if law enforcement saw them, attaching, removing, tampering, whatever, they would arrest them, not be the ones planting or removing the device.
Planting a device and capturing (partially) private data goes IMO way beyond the comparison in the court case to aiding physical vision with binoculars. In the case of Knotts/Armstrong, the FBI in fact planted the device with permission to the supplier and it was the supplier of the chemical that betrayed the trust of the suspect in the interest of preventing his product from being used for criminal activity. Personally I see a distinction though I couldn't tell if the court did.
To the layman it seems like a small but important step to go from convincing the chief of police or FBI superviser, that a specific crime is so likely (probable) that it 'warrants' such a bold action, to convincing a judge of probable cause. The difference is a tighter legal standard and having the review done by a somewhat neutral third party.
Crafty, Thanks for getting me headed right on that. I will fix that post. I've never seen a foreclosure document; I like the ones that say paid in full. Was there a law requiring personal signatures of bank officers on foreclosure documents or is someone trying to make tighter rules now?
If foreclosures were defective then they have to go back and do it again and that helps no one. A simple quit claim deed would also do if the defaulting homeowner is not fighting the repo. I hear about 'cash for keys' programs which I believe are really cash for documents (quit claim?) so this may just be a cost of doing sloppy business. Too bad the taxpayer is on the hook for what should be private sector business. If it takes another 6 months, 12 months (?) then the defaulting party is just that much further away from ever making their loan current, and living for free never seems to have benefit the defaulter.
JDN, I also favor fewer poisons in the environment to a choking smog and toxic water supply. Do you then favor zero emissions - no driving, no flying, no roadbuilding, no farming etc. to some emissions? Back to the point of the story, do you favor honest, informed consent or perhaps getting a stricter standard passed with false data that exaggerates emissions by 4-fold? The latter may be cleaner and healthier...
Chávez's Secret Nuclear Program It's not clear what Venezuela's hiding, but it's definitely hiding something -- and the fact that Iran is involved suggests that it's up to no good. BY ROGER F. NORIEGA | OCTOBER 5, 2010
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez admitted last week that his government is "carrying out the first studies" of a nuclear program. He attempted to portray it as an innocuous program designed solely for peaceful purposes.
On Sept. 21, I held a briefing for journalists and regional experts where I revealed for the first time information about Chavez's nuclear program and his troubling and substantial collaboration with Iran. This research -- conducted during the past 12 months by a team of experts who analyzed sensitive material obtained from sources within the Venezuelan regime -- paints a far darker picture of Chavez's intentions.
Chávez has been developing the program for two years with the collaboration of Iran, a nuclear rogue state. In addition to showing the two states' cooperation on nuclear research, these documents suggest that Venezuela is helping Iran obtain uranium and evade international sanctions, all steps that are apparent violations of the U.N. Security Council resolutions meant to forestall Iran's illegal nuclear weapons program.
Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau San Francisco Chronicle October 8, 2010 (10-08) 04:00 PDT Sacramento - --
California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state's clean-air standards, and scientists have spent the past several months revising data and planning a significant weakening of the landmark regulation, The Chronicle has found.
The pollution estimate in question was too high - by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards. The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007, a rule that forces businesses to cut diesel emissions by replacing or making costly upgrades to heavy-duty, diesel-fueled off-road vehicles used in construction and other industries.
ap·o·thegm also ap·o·phthegm (p-thm) n. A terse, witty, instructive saying; a maxim. [Greek apophthegma, from apophthengesthai, to speak plainly : apo-, intensive pref.; see apo- + phthengesthai, phtheg-, to speak.] apo·theg·matic (-thg-mtk), apo·theg·mati·cal (--kl) adj. apo·theg·mati·cal·ly adv.
Like Crafty expressed, I am enjoying the contention (in a sort of painful way) between our rights to be left alone and our rights to have crime and corruption rooted out as necessary.
I am thankful for a couple of stings the FBI did within Minneapolis City Hall a few years back that shook up some of the corruption that festers when you have single party rule. I am thankful for 19 al Qaida related arrests they made before I had to do with any of these people on a tenant application, though I know none of the facts so far. I am thankful the IRS, after a couple of swings at me, determined that I am mostly a law abiding citizen and definitely a small fish unworthy of very much of their time. They can be far more abusive than local police or FBI IMO. I am thankful that my own small town on the outskirts of the metro has never had a rape, murder, abduction or armed robbery that i know of. Leaves our fraction of a LEO very free to observe lumens from taillights and important matters like that.
Most of what is wrong in this country has to do with excessive laws, not excessive enforcement. Little things like saying the houses have to be the same height and the same distance from the street piss me off more than current drug dealer and murder investigation techniques.
Every new law passed and every GPS bug planted, judge or no judge, should be with the understanding that most of us are innocent and want to be left alone.
Whoops. Thank you GM. Getting sloppy with my leftists. Ayers wrote Obama's book. Alinsky wrote the book they govern by. I'm reading Agassi's book, also by a ghost writer. At least he openly acknowledges it.
Palin is an intuitive conservative, not an intellectual/scholar, and not a policy detail person like perhaps Paul Ryan or Gingrich.
She governed as a pragmatic conservative, not an ideologue. That record is gone now and replaced with the quitter ending.
She wasn't ready for Gibson and Couric. I don't know if people get a second chance. She was about 12 times more accurate than Biden in her debate. Still she came across there as trying too hard to stick to a few repetitive themes.
She rubs liberals the wrong way that's too bad. If she rubs our ownresidient conservative-centrist wrong - even a couple of years later - that is an electoral problem.
She is not the one I am looking for but acceptable to me. I place a high value on winning though so how well she brings people in is just as important as how she can energize the base. We need to do both! ---- We both pointed out that Bolton's stand on bombing Iran is controversial yet may become accepted wisdom. It proves he not just a follower of polls or pundits (though maybe a warmonger, kidding). People are war-fatigued so it will be hard to exude strength, though easy to contrast with Obama. Bolton was a recess appointment to Ambassadorship IIRC because the senate would not confirm him. That too may become a badge of honor but not a great early indicator of crossover appeal. I like that he understands if he wants to be considered, to step forward now. He already forced palin's hand in that regard. Regarding foreign policy, he was in the room for a period during most of the tough issues. Regarding economics, it sounds like he learned from some of the best conservative minds. There is plenty of time and we will see.
I am anti-Huckabee still and I can't see how Romney who signed different government healthcare is the guy to repeal-replace federal healthcare, no matter his stated positions. Giuliani got a nice decade off his name following 911 but disappointed last time and seems very out of the picture now. Gingrich...? Again acceptable to me but I don't think the winner. Huntsman was the centrist they were supposedly grooming for the job. It took 2 pages on google to even find him. Most of the new faces emerging now are too new to be President in '12. Obama lacked experience but he had burst onto the national political scene by 4 years previous to his election.
Too bad we can't get a pro-growth, pro-strength, pro-freedom, pro-constitution Democrat (why is that an oxymoron?) to win the nomination, hold his/her feet to the fire from congress and live with divided / bipartisan government.
We are not building more nuclear plants right now because we choose to not build more. Yet we desperately need energy, and hate oil, coal, etc. Certain government actions are required to get a new plant rolling. Same for waste storage.
Major moves with energy have 8-10 year lead times. What we didn't do 8-10 years ago is killing us now. We are creating enough other lingering problems for the next generation besides no energy or having all our energy coming from elsewhere.
Current nuclear energy technology of the US and other western countries has the best safety record of any energy source on the planet.
Wind and solar provide a drip of energy and require substantial subsidy. You don't power an auto plant or even a wind turbine plant with solar, lol. Eventually you run out of other peoples money, and we did.
Current nuclear technology has zero carbon dioxide emissions, so it is the cheapest, safest and the cleanest.
Obama saying yes to nuclear is like Obama saying yes to off-shore. A head fake for political cover. Like healthcare, certain political actors don't care if they cripple our economy or starve us of resources, like affordable, clean, safe energy. Adults will have to step forward and make tough decisions. If not nuclear, then what, and WHEN?
Result is that in fact we are building plenty of new manufacturing capacity, plenty of new coal plants and plenty of new nuclear plants and adding plenty of new manufacturing jobs, with our money... in China.
Someone who favors this current policy of wait for the unknown and don't build today, please explain to me how this makes sense or which part I have wrong.
"Couple that with the lessons he learned from Alinsky..."
CCP, I came to the same conclusion you did, that both theories are partly true. He grew up largely off the mainland, maybe idolized his absent father, learned an anti-colonial view, opposite of so-called American exceptionalism. His absent mother was plenty leftist too. Then mixed with left- extremists like Alinsky..
My belief at this point is that Alinsky wrote that Obama book. It was with Obama's notes, but Alinsky tied his storyline through it. Same to differing extents with (nearly) all books by big shots, so that is not new; it just means take anything too literally.
Now BO is tied to his own policies so the key forward is to expose those, sell the alternative like individual economic liberties and defeat him with his policies.
The inner brain workings of another President from a dysfunctional family don't interest me that much except in how to understand him enough to defeat him.
"...asked BO how he could be for increasing the Cap Gains rate when it would lead to less revenues-- and BO's answer was that it was a matter of "equity/fairness". "
The teleprompter was off and the truth slipped out. Raising that rate was more important to him than raising revenue. A successful campaign idea - go after the rich - was more important than governing, the best interests of the country, following the constitution or following the ten commandments, like covet, steal or worship other gods. I do remember that and it was pretty much the same as the Joe the Plumber incident. When caught Obama did not back off of misguided, poorly articulated ideas. I don't understand why he won't back off of bad ideas now, while governing. To him, this is still a campaign and that is what he knows. Everyday was a campaign to Bill Clinton too, but it was a campaign to promote himself and to shift himself when necessary, not a campaign to stick with bad ideas no matter the political cost or the real damage caused to the country or to the economy.
Like a large voice on radio said: I hope he fails [to accomplish what he has set out to do].
Continuing a thought going back to Crafty's mention that MV=PQ. (or MV=PY: money supply, velocity, price level and real output) Among many poorly measured and poorly defined terms in economics, inflation is often described as:
Note that the verb 'chase' is your velocity. We have more money, we have static output, but we also have no chase (velocity), so we do not yet have general price level increases. Money is largely sitting idle on the sidelines, waiting.
If/when economic activity picks up again, the reality of an increased money supply will multiply with new velocity, at least back to normal or historic levels, and could very easily result in spiraling price level increases *** depending on changes in all other variables. That is the fear of all economists except Krugman who already knows the results of these policies.
From GM's post: "Net tax collections are still about 20% below where they were two years ago"
I never understood why big spenders from the Dem side never latched onto the successes with the big revenue surges from supply side incentives, such as after the JFK rate cuts, the Reagan rate cuts, the Gingrich Clinton capital gains rate cuts or the Bush tax cuts. I don't think any sane company president ever got away with saying that our revenues are down 20%, let's raise our prices until we make up the shortfall and start growing again.