-->
| ThoughtsOnline |
|
Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it... BLOGS I SORT OF LIKE... Volokh Conspiracy ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico Powerline Ace Wizbang JustOneMinute XRLQ Betsy's Page HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit Email Steve
|
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Politicians usually claim they'll do things the voters like... as opposed to their opponent who will do things voters won't like.
So... considering that the voters want Obamacare repealed... and they didn't like either the stimulus or the bailout... and they don't want their energy costs to go up with cap and trade... what exactly is this 'progress' that Obama claims is at risk if the GOP takes over? And people still consider Obama a great campaigner? Monday, October 25, 2010
I know that the rhetoric can be a bit heated during a campaign but I don't think Obama is just following the playbook, he really doesn't like anything the GOP stands for and is going after them with every ounce of energy he can muster... and that means that anyone hoping for some post-election good old fashioned 'bipartisanship' is likely to be very disappointed.
So many words and still the NYT can't figure it out...
Their analysis of Obama's relationship (or lack thereof) with the GOP and their thoughts on how the relationship might function post-election totally miss the point that holds true in any type of relationship: Compromise is a sign of weakness and a means of trying to salvage something of benefit People with power don't compromise... for the simple reason that they don't have to compromise, they can do what they want and without needing someone else's help. Only those lacking the ability (or, perhaps, the ruthlessness) to impose their will seek compromise with the other side, a means of getting at least some of what they want. Obama and the Democrats didn't seek compromise with the Republicans because Obama and the Democrats didn't need GOP help in enacting their agenda. They didn't need GOP votes to pass the stimulus, cap and trade, budget or Obamacare. And the GOP didn't compromise with Obama for the same reason, but in reverse: the GOP had nothing (except the ability to raise a stink) that Obama wanted... so why would Obama agree to accept less than what he could have gotten without compromise? Looking forward, if the GOP does gain control of at least one House, then both the GOP and Obama will have to compromise... for the simple reason that nothing can move forward without support from both sides. Obama won't be able to get all of what he wants and neither will the GOP be able to get all of what they want. Both sides will have to accept some of what the other wants in order to get any of what they want. And that simple calculus, more than any analysis the NYT puts forward, is the key to understanding the relationship between Obama and the GOP.
According to Michael Barone (and a number of others), "... in wave-election years, the wave party usually wins half or a little more of the seats it targets, while the losing party usually wins only about one-tenth of its target seats"
While true, it is also no help for those trying to guess how the election is going to turn out. One doesn't know in advance if an election is a 'wave election'. An election is a 'wave election' only if the results turn out that way, with the GOP capturing tons of Democratic-held seats. If, on the other hand, the Democrats don't do so badly, then the GOP doesn't do so good... and by definition, this isn't a wave election. Friday, October 22, 2010
Conservative = a liberal who's just been mugged.
Conservative hero = a liberal who gets fired from a liberal organization for not being liberal enough. Conservative hero biting the hand that no longer feeds him = a liberal who gets fired from a liberal organization for not being liberal enough who only then opines that said liberal organization isn't entitled to and shouldn't receive federal funding. Juan Williams would have a bit more credibility on that point if he had said this while he was receiving money from NPR and hadn't waited until the gravy train had stopped rolling. I guess NPR receiving millions of taxpayer dollars was okay as long as he was getting his cut. Note: as a I don't watch or listen to Williams, it is possible that I missed him arguing against NPR subsidies while he was still on NPR's payroll. If it turns out he did, I humbly retract the above and offer my apologies. But my guess is that he never did. Thursday, October 21, 2010
The Democrats have given the GOP a wonderful opportunity to return early from their self-inflicted trip to the woodshed. It is far from certain that the GOP won't blow it this time... just as they've done so many times before.
With that in mind, here is some (as usual) unsolicited advice for the Republicans if they gain control of one or both Houses of Congress in next month's elections... * First and most important, you're not Sally Field, the voters do not like you per se, so do NOT take this as voter support for the GOP. They weren't voting for you as much as they were taking out on the Democrats their frustrations with the economy. You don't have a mandate to institute conservative policies as much as you have a mandate to oppose the liberals. There is a difference and it is important to remember that. Bush failed to recognize in 2000 and 2008 that voters picked him less than they voted against Gore and Kerry and Obama failed - or ignored - the fact that voters weren't voting for him to push through liberal policies as much as they were expressing dissatisfaction with both Bush and the incompetent and ineffective campaign McCain was running... and Bush and Obama have both paid the price. * Remember that most of you, and especially those of you coming from purplish districts, owe your victory to the mushy middle. Without their votes, you would not have won. Ignore them at your peril. Don't make the same mistake as the Democrats, who found - to their chagrin - that pushing a liberal agenda does not endear one to the plurality of voters who pride themselves on not being on one side or the other of the ideological aisle. Focus on the issues that most voters care about, not just the voters who make themselves heard the loudest. * Do not worry about Obama and the surviving Democrats labeling you as 'the Party of No'. Remember, you won because the voters did not approve of what Obama was doing and is trying to do... and they're more likely to get upset with you if you go along with Obama than if you continue to stand in opposition. You'll get no points for 'bi-partisanship' if the result of that doesn't provide a boost to the economy... and since pretty much everything the Democrats have done and proposed over the past couple of years has been detrimental to the economy, you will not lose support when you continue to stand in opposition. When (it isn't 'if', it is definitely 'when') the Democrats try this avenue of attack, your response needs to be something along the lines of 'as long as Obama keeps pushing the same hard left agenda the voters so clearly rejected, I am going to keep standing in opposition'. In fact, you need to announce almost immediately after the election that you are willing to work with Obama and the Democrats ONLY if they abandon the hard left agenda... and if they don't, you will oppose them with every means possible. Since Obama is on the wrong side, he is the one who needs to move, there is no imperative for you to abandon those who voted for you in the name of (the very over-rated) 'bi-partisanship'. * Do not get bogged down in 'inside Washington' arguments over process. The Democrats didn't lose because they manipulated the process in order to push through their agenda, they lost because the voters didn't approve of the agenda being pushed through. If you give the voters what they want, they won't care about the means you used to get there. * Having made the above point, change the way Washington keeps score. Get rid of staffers on the Joint Tax Committee who oppose using dynamic scoring of tax cuts. Change the law so that merely holding spending constant doesn't count as a 'cut'. And do this quickly. * Remember Carville's still applicable advice: "it is still the economy, stupid". The voters who matter (see second point above) care far less about social issues than they care about unemployment, the deficit, federal spending, taxes getting raised and the ever-expanding role of government into our daily lives. Concentrate on fixing the economy and you'll be rewarded with re-election, the small number of social conservatives who get upset with you because, for example, you didn't push through repeal of Roe-v-Wade, will be dwarfed by the votes you'll gain mushy middle voters thankful their jobs are more secure and their home values aren't falling through the floor. * Do NOT worry or try to curry favor with the Washington press corps. They do not like you and the only thing you can do to make them dislike you less is to act like a liberal Democrat. But since the MSM reaches fewer people and has far less impact than it did just a few years ago, their animosity towards you will have much less of an negative impact on your re-election chances. * During what promises to be a major fight with the Obama Administration and the Democrats over pretty much everything of substance (and probably some issues of minor importance), it is critical that the GOP announce and follow a consistent set of well thought out talking points. Because the MSM is hostile to you and, even though weaker than they once were, still able to do damage, it is imperative that you keep the loose cannons quiet and out of sight. Designate one (or, at most, two people) person from each house who is both articulate and quick on their feet as the 'go-to' guy (or gal) for a particular issue, have them serve as the voice of the GOP during these battles and insist (through the threat of losing seniority and campaign support) that everyone else keep their mouth shut. You simply can not have someone go off and say something (that even sounds) stupid as that will cost you support points with the public. * Along those lines, pre-emptively attack the Democrat lines of attack. You know they will accuse you of being racially insensitive (if not outright bigots), not caring about children, beholden to the rich, xenophobic, etc., etc., etc. Don't wait for them to launch the attack, start your pitches with something along the lines of 'I know my opponents will call us (fill in the blank), that is their standard and knee-jerk response when they can't criticize the substance of what we're proposing. We're not doing this because we're (fill in the blank), we're doing this because it is the right thing to do for America'. * And do not do what the voters who voted for you don't want you to do. They don't want you to support expansions of federal spending, even a little bit of it... so if there is something that you think needs more money, take it from somewhere else. They don't like earmarks... so don't load up the budget with them. They don't want you raising taxes... on anyone.... so don't. They don't want to see you beholden to lobbyists... so don't let them write your legislation, don't hire them to fill out your staffs and don't take anything that even smells like a bribe from one. Getting re-elected - and retaining control - is really a pretty simple thing to do. Just do the things the people who voted for you want you to do. Don't substitute your judgment for theirs. Don't become the person (Washington insider) they don't want you to be. You think you're up to the challenge? I hope so. Thursday, October 07, 2010
I can't find the article online to link to, but a Businessweek writer recently offered up the view that because Google makes so much money that Facebook ought to be able to do the same thing... which is a ridiculous position to take.
No one would say that Facebook ought to be able to make lots of money because Dell Computer and Microsoft makes lots of money. Why? Because most people can see that while all three are in some way involved with computers and the internet that they're really not in the same business, they do different things from one another, thus making any apple to apple comparisons defective. And the same holds true for those attempting to use Google as a benchmark for visualizing huge revenue potential to other companies operating online such as Facebook. As I have said before (unlike above, I can find these links, but I'm lazy and don't want to, you'll have to look yourself), Google is different from every other (non-search) company selling advertising on its site. And this isn't because Google is the 800 pound gorilla but rather because people go to Google looking for advertising... something they don't do with any other (non-search) site. This is the distinction that most analysts can't or don't make and which makes every 'we can do what Google does' analysis flawed. People go to Google looking for the links to advertisers that Google offers and this is why advertisers pay money to list on Google... they know that if they pay enough and write a clever enough ad, there's a real good chance that the visitor will click on their ad. And that is NOT what happens at Facebook or any other (non-search) website selling advertising space. Visitors to those sites are not looking for advertising, they're looking for the content on the site. Ads are viewed as clutter and distractions. Google is the online equivalent of the Yellow Pages. People used the Yellow Pages because they were looking for a merchant where they could get what they were looking to buy... the same thing they do when they start typing into the Google search bar. Facebook is more along the lines of a magazine or newspaper selling ads to local merchants. Their challenge is that most people (and especially today) don't buy newspapers and magazines to get the advertising, they go to Facebook because they like the content on the site. And just as magazines faced reader backlash if they too closely tied the advertising to the content so too will Facebook face a backlash (as they have already) if they too closely integrate the advertising into the content. Once upon a time, before the Internet, magazines and newspapers were able to sell lots of advertising in large part because there really weren't any tools with which advertisers could see just how little they were getting for their money. That isn't the case online where advertisers are able to painstakingly able to determine what return they are (or, as is usually the case, not) getting on their investment. Advertisers are going to Facebook because of the hype. They'll soon realize they're only losing their money. Wednesday, October 06, 2010
There is a common thread between the funeral protest case currently before the Supreme Court, the story of the guy whose house burned down because he hadn't signed up for fire coverage from the semi-local fire department as well as in much of the argument over aspects of Obamacare.
All three represent aspects of what I refer to as 'I don't want you imposing your values on me, thus it isn't right for me to try and impose my values on you'. Working in reverse, I don't want society telling me how I take care of my and my family's medical care... so I don't think it right for society to mandate either that people buy coverage or the specific aspects of insurance that people buy. Nor do I want society to tell me that I was too stupid to make my own decisions on how to take care of my property... so I don't think it right for society to force homeowners such as this to buy fire coverage. And just as I am willing to bear the consequences of my own decisions, so too should this homeowner bear the consequences of what turned out be his penny-wise dollar-foolish decision to not pre-pay for firefighting coverage. And just as I don't want society telling me what I can say or where I can say it, I don't think it right for society to tell others what they can say and where they can say it. As demented as they are, the members of the Westboro Baptist Church should be able to make their protests.... just as others ought to be able to drown out their message. Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen dredges up the 40 year old incident at Kent State in his latest attempt to portray the right as dangerous but, and probably unintentionally, does so in a way that shows it is the left who is behaving in much the same way now that Richard Nixon did forty years ago.
The four students shot at Kent State were exercising their rights to protest against the Vietnam War. While some isolated protests did involve violence (primarily destruction of property, including some at Kent State in the days preceding the shooting), the protests were mostly peaceful. It was the political establishment's way-over-the-top reaction to these protests and their incessant demonizing of the protesters that (in my view) led to the Ohio National Guardsmen shooting into a crowd of students, killing four and wounding more (some of whom weren't involved in the protests at all and were merely and unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time). Today, it is the right which is exercising their right to protest against what they view as a government run amok... and they're doing so peacefully. They've burned far fewer ROTC centers, broken far fewer windows, tried to blow up far fewer Army bases and used far less vulgar language to describe the people they're mad at than the anti-war protesters who Cohen still feels such affection for did forty years ago. The Tea Party is the poster child for how to conduct peaceful protests. It is the left that today is doing everything it can to demonize these protesters by accusing them of being racists and trying to portray the protesters as being unstable and apt to explode into violence at any time. The left today - including Cohen - is employing the same thuggish tactics as Richard Nixon did forty years ago. As I wrote, I am pretty sure the symbolism is lost on Cohen, no fan of Richard Nixon. I, on the other hand, got quite a chuckle. Thanks, Richard.
With one month to go before the elections, here is my wish list (in order)...
* GOP takes control of the House (more important than the Senate, due to the filibuster which diminishes power for majority party having less than 60 Senators) * Boxer loses (what a sad excuse for a Senator) * Grayson loses (what a sad excuse, period) * Harry Reid loses (although if the GOP took control of the Senate, I think it would be okay if Reid won and was unceremoniously dumped by the remaining Democrats) * Cuomo loses (as a rule, I think most State Attorney Generals misuse their power and shouldn't be rewarded with a Senate seat) * Blumenthal loses (for the same reason, plus his having lied about serving in Vietnam) * Feingold loses (always good to knock out one of the most liberal officeholders) * Pelosi wins (and has to watch her caucus relegate her to the back) * The media actually portraying the election results as a repudiation of Democratic policy and not merely a case of bad candidates, bad messaging and/or shameful tactics on the part of the GOP. * Obama acknowledging that the country doesn't want what he is trying to do. Note the above - and especially the last two - are NOT predictions, they are merely the things I would like to see happen. A guy can dream, right? Monday, October 04, 2010
There's a story about a rural homeowner whose house burned to the ground after the (semi-local) firefighters stood by and did nothing, a result of the homeowner not having paid a $75 fee that would have entitled him to coverage.
It's amusing - and depressing - to see any number of supposed conservatives argue that the firefighters should have gone ahead and put out the fire anyway. Or that the firefighters should have offered some arrangement to the homeowners who was, at that moment, very much regretting his move to save $75. Or that the fees shouldn't have been voluntary, that the county should have forced everybody to pay taxes to cover the costs of a fire department. No. One of the things that defines the 'non'-nanny state is a willingness to let people enter into arrangements they feel meet their needs... and to let those people enjoy the benefits when their decisions work out... and to let them suffer the consequences when their choices don't work out. Which means we let people go without coverage... and if things work out and they don't suffer a loss, then great for them, they gain by the amount of money they've saved. But if they decide to spend their money elsewhere, we do not come to their rescue and save them from what some would refer to as 'their own stupidity'. Yes, sometimes people act in ways that turn out to be $75 wise and thousands of dollar foolish. But the alternative is to have our wisdom trump theirs.... and as I don't want to have my choices limited by some self-selecting elite, I recognize it is only fair that I not try and force them to accept my decision. I want to be free to succeed or fail based on what I do... and I can't deny others the right to do for themselves what I want for me. So the guy's house burns down. His choices, his consequences. No lost sleep here. Friday, October 01, 2010
When Obama was elected, some (here and here) talked of 'going John Galt'... and I think much of America has in fact decided to do so.
Companies are sitting on a ton of cash, refusing to spend it either hiring or buying equipment. Sector after sector is showing minimal gains, if indeed any. Drivers aren't spending money to buy new cars. Just as George Will wrote of how people scattered around the country and the world each make a series of independent decisions that result in the manufacture of a pencil, so too are millions of people around the country, acting both in their business capacity and as individuals, independently making decisions that they think are in their best interest... and right now, with Obama in office and pursuing his agenda, they're deciding the best course of action is to do nothing.
|