3.01.2009

Is Jindal's Demise Gingrich's Gain?

Bobby Jindal caught at least one break this week: Saturday Night Live was in reruns. But it's been a tough week for the Louisiana Governor. First there was his response Tuesday night to Barack Obama's unofficial State of the Union address, a performance panned by conservatives and liberals alike. Then, there were the questions about the veracity of a certain anecdote that Jindal relayed in his address (and questions about the wisdom of certain others). Finally, Jindal finished with just 14 percent of the vote in the CPAC straw poll, in spite of an audience full of young, smart and very conservative conservatives, exactly the sort of voter whom Jindal is supposed to appeal to.

It would be premature, to say the least, to write Jindal out of the 2012 script. Truly gifted politicians have nine lives and then some, and American politics are full of stories of embarrassment followed by redemption. Jindal's difficulties this week, moreover, were relatively minor ones. Nevertheless, in terms of momentum and buzz, Jindal's star got a little smaller this week, perhaps opening up space for another candidate who occupies a similar space in the Republican insterstellar medium. One such candidate is Newt Gingrich, who like Jindal, can plausibly claim both populist and technocratic credentials.

Out of all the authentically conservative Republican alternatives for 2012, Gingrich is perhaps the only one who has shown clear signs of avoiding the McCain/Palin campaign's mistake, which strove to try and win the race one 24-hour news cycle at a time, the longer-term damage to their brand be damned. Gingrich has picked his spots, urging Republicans to go after Tim Geithner but dissuading them from doing the same over Rod Blagojevich. He seems to understand that opposition-for-opposition's sake is not enough, having urged Congressional Republicans to propose an all-tax-cuts alternative to the stimulus package -- something they eventually did, but far too late in the day to get any serious attention. And he seems capable of at least a little bit of rhetorical moderation -- compare Gingrich's proposed slogan ("drill here, drill now, pay less") on the offshore drilling issue to the much shriller alternative eventually adopted by the McCain campaign ("drill, baby, drill!").

But if Gingrich is highly skilled at messaging -- is he necessarily the right messenger? On this account, there is more reason to be skeptical. Gingrich is not very popular; a CBS News Poll conducted in April 2007 showed that 43 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of Gingrich, versus just 16 percent favorable (a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted at about the same time put the numbers at 29 percent favorable, 48 percent unfavorable). He has never been a candidate for Senate or Governor (let alone President) and his former Congressional District in Georgia was of the ruby-red variety, winnable by appealing to conservatives only. And Gingrich's opponents will have no absence of ammunition surrounding his supposed or real personal failings.

A prominent Republican strategist told me this week he thought there was a better than 50:50 chance that Gingrich will in fact enter the race in 2012. But personally, I think it is somewhat more likely that Gingrich will play the role of kingmaker -- or, perhaps, queenmaker. What conservatives really seem to want is Newt Gingrich's brain poised atop of Sarah Palin's body.

109 comments

Geo. said...

Gingrich is a loathsome prat, besides his political views, which are equally loathsome and pratty, but he's certainly a slick and polished presenter compared to Jindal and Palin, one benefit of "experience", I guess. Like it or not, presentation matters, but comparing him to Obama, were he to be the nominee in 2012, would be amusing on a personal level, if for no other reason.

M. Joseph Goodfriend said...

"I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals."

Newt Gingrich, in 1998, after learning that the Republican Party was taking away his Speakership and forcing him to resign from Congress.

I wonder if they've forgotten about that?

Robby said...

I could see Gingrich as a Cheney-style VP; that position might certainly interest him (especially in a hypothetical Palin administration), and he could deflect a lot of "experience" or "intellect" questions from the top of the ticket.

That being said, unless things get much, much worse, I don't see how Obama loses in 2012. Granted, I could round up a dozen very smart people who said the same thing about G.H.W. Bush's reelection odds, but I still think 2014 is going to be the next window for a Republican renaissance.

Statler N Waldorf said...
This post has been removed by the author.
markymark said...

Gingrich is too much of an ego to play the backroom Cheney like figure, but also sensible enough to know he isn't going to win a Presidential election. He could lead the revolution in 1994, but he wasn't asking people to vote for him. Also he is not as skilled a politician as he might like you to think. Clinton in his weakest political moments over the budget shut down could get the better of him, those scheming in the GOP leadership could do him in, he's never been able to win any real personal popularity. He is tooooo much the professor, lecturing the silly people who just don't get it. If the GOP is going to stand a chance against Obama in 2012, my guess is they will have to finda much more populist campaigner.

Mark said...

You've got a lot of "Gingirch" typos to clean up, Nate...

Saint Dude said...

For my taste, there is way too much focus on republican "personalities". I simply do not care at the moment if any of these people can rally a base of support or not.

The broader issue is not wether the GOP can put forward a candidate with a tight ass, or one that has Obama like optics, or even one that has a bit of gravitas. The issue at hand is simply:

DOES ANYONE IN THE GOP HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THE DEBATE THAT WILL HELP OUR COUNTRY DIG ITSELF OUT OF THE NUMEROUS AND DEEP HOLES THAT WE CURRENTLY FIND OURSELVES IN?

Thus far, the GOP has offered nothing but noise, criticism, and some weakly reworked political slogans. They have offered nothing concrete in terms of economic recovery, health care reform, entitlement reform, or any other relevant issue of the day. They are either incapable or unwilling to contribute to efforts to solve this country's problems.

They therefore have no message. Who gives a fuck who their messengers are?

LittleWays said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Leonard said...

It may not be the best 'shop job, but that picture is still disturbing on several levels.

PeixeGato said...

Nate, you hit the nail on the head with the last sentence of your post. I just wonder if they are willing to admit it to themselves.

I think someone like Huntsman from ID could be someone who could bring the repubs from their ever increasing isolationism, but the party is not yet ready to admit that they are killing themselves slowly.

As long as repubs contineu to make morality that lithmus test for who can represent them on the national stage, they are going to continue to see their ranks shrink and consolidate to the far right.

striatic said...

i don't think that Gingrich's "All-tax-cut" option would have worked politically, no matter when it had been introduced.

that plan was ridiculed pretty widely and effectively, and furthered the idea of the republican party being a one-trick pony. the attacks they made on "pork" were much more effective, i think.

Gingrich is cool. he considers his options before acting, unlike many conservative commentators and politicians. he's got more than nerve, and a deep reservoir of knowledge but i'm still not sure that he's a capable politician. his success in the 90s seems to have been due to a situation specific alignment of the electorate and his relatively fixed worldview, than by adaptability or persuasion on his part.

Judge C. Crater said...

Pshaw. Everyone knows that Limbaugh will be nominated in 2012. Did you see/read his CPAC address? It's an inevitable consequence of R valuing personality over substance or qualifications.

Saint Dude said...

On second thought, republicans do have a message.

It is, "Burn! Baby Burn!".

They hope, pray, and will do whatever they can to ensure that the coming years are a living hell. In that way, they hope to teach the fickle American populace a lesson. - GOVERNMENT SUCKS. DEMOCRATS HORRIFYINGLY BAD. REPUBLICANS LESSER OF TWO EVILS.

Must have power . . . AT . . . ANY . . . . COST!

markymark said...

INcidentally I agree with the idea that the GOP has to find a message before it finds a candidate.

Personally I think the GOP is in a similar position to the British Conservative Party after Tony Blair won the 1997 General Election, they lack leadership and don't seem to understand just how unpopular they are right now. I think they would be well advised to quietly retreat to a corner and figure out how to form a message that they electorate will buy. Otherwise they might be looking at it being 2020 before they have much of a chance to win the Presidency.

fred said...

I don't think Gingrich can survive all the skeletons in his closet to run for national office - that said he is a political genius and can help lead the party out of this mess. They will still have to find a cnadidate though, and noone looks to even be a real contender in 2012. They need someone to rise from the ashes with a vision, which could happen in 2016 and it could be this guy, although he might have the Mormon problem with the evangelicals in his own party:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19455.html

PorridgeGun said...

Jindal's difficulties this week, moreover, were relatively minor ones.


I think you're underestimating how much damage has been inflicted on this moron, Nate. Jindal is now a national joke, much like Mooseburger during the campaign. When Multiple Choice Mitt's stock is on the rise, you know the 2012 Republican field is pretty bad. I mean, Limbaugh REALLY is the leader of the party right now.


Bill Maher and P.J O'Rourke ripping the piss out of Jindal and the GOP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcrgn63beCg

Matt said...

Nate,

You gotta lay back on the cheap shots. I agree that 'Drill here, drill now, pay less' is better than 'Drill, baby, drill!' but slogans like that always need to be catchy. And the latter is definitely catchier. And please, I'm not sure that 'Yes we can' is any better.

Sometimes your points just seem petty. I'm just being honest here. I enjoyed your site a lot during the election but towards the end of it, and especially after it, most of the posts have become extremely partisan. And it really isn't hard for people to see this...I venture to say most of your new visitors nowadays are also partisans. This is a big change from how it was during the election...the comments for each post also make this abundantly clear.

Alex S. said...

Yep, the stars are aligning in Gingrich's favor. Jindal won't recover before 2012. The Republican party is looking for a message and a strategist. The Bush people are disgraced. There is also the tendency to let old party soldiers run for the presidency when a victory is unlikely (Dole, McCain).

Gingrich will continue to weave his web. His padawan is the current House minority whip. He has gone from critisizing Palin to supporting her. And I think that movement conservatism will make one last stand in 2012. After this loss, the GOP will start to change.

LFC said...

The problem the GOP has now is that all of the people who are perceived as leaders in the party are extremists. At this point, their only "strategy" is to hope that Obama fails and then jump up and down screaming "I told you so." If he doesn't fail, their whole "strategy" falls apart.

Think about the stimulus bill. They screamed "PORK!" and came up with a few small things, probably half of which turned out to be bulls***. They had two responses.

One was the Gingrich view of "nothing but tax cuts", which is open to outright ridicule after the past GOP decade.

The other was that they said the spending needed to be more focused on infrastructure. Fair enough. Sooooooo, where's the list of all the additional infrastructure projects that Obama missed?

They have the same credibility problem McCain had. "I know how to find Bin Laden." "I know how to fix the economy" (after saying its fundamentals were strong). But saying you know and presenting a plan are worlds apart. The GOP hasn't offered a real plan for much of anything in a long time.

Alex S. said...

Lol, well, "Drill, baby, drill", spoken by the first female republican vice-presidential nominee is only going to attract a certain kind of voter.... Gingrich's appeal to your wallet is much better.

Rick said...

I'm no Jindal fan, but I tend to take the long view with him. His presidential aspirations aren't going to be derailed by a single speech, especially this early out. If that were the case, then Bill Clinton's infamously bad introduction speech of Michael Dukakis at the 1988 Democratic Convention should have prevented him from being President.

I try to look at Jindal's ideas of where he would take the country if elected. If I had to glean anything from the text of his Republican response speech, my opinion is that he's not ready to lend constructive ideas of how to get the United States out of this mess.

Ari said...

Lots of bad links. Make sure you get your http:// in there.

harold said...

For fairness, Jindal came in second in a multi-way poll that had Romney as the winner of a modest plurality.

Right now it looks as if the 2012 Republican candidate will be a 90's figure and "movement conservative".

However, that's what it looked like through much of 2007 and 2008, but in the end, they went with the only candidate who had a snowball's chance in hell in the polls, McCain, even though they hate him. They clearly preferred others internally, but gave in to the polls eventually.

Polls will show that Gingrich, Limbaugh, Palin, Romney, and other such figures are unelectable.

They may just do a Thelma and Louise cliff dive by putting Gingrich on the ticket and going out on their own terms.

Or they try to find someone who has some chance of winning an election, however small. In which case some yet unidentified figure will have to emerge. Possibly a female governor other than Palin or a female senator.

susan said...

Gingrich on Palin, stuff of nightmares.

Be alert to latest Republican meme, all over talk and blogosphere: tax will increase for all because of environmental initiatives. Needs to be stamped on, hard. Seems logical as their only possible road to attempt to derail popular return of taxes on rich to pre-Bush levels.

Steven said...

I think that to think that one bad speech will completely wreck a a political career is to take too narrow of a view. In the end, people have short memories about these things, and more people than not don't follow politics consistently or constantly.

This view reminds me of a comment I read in the aftermath of Eric Cantor and the AFSCME flop, something akin to "he's lost Italians and union voters with that one!" I thought that that whole line of analysis was preposterous. Voters aren't so easily persuaded or dissuaded. John Murtha called the people in his district "rednecks" and "racists" and he still won his district by 18 points. (I'm not saying that he SHOULDN'T have won, or that I would have or wouldn't have voted for him. It's just instructive, I think.)

My point is that single "political events" have little impact. Larger, social and economic events (like the September collapse of the economy) are far more influential than one bad speech 2.5 years prior to any real presidential campaign.

Saint Dude said...

One thing is certain, those attending CPAC sure had a hard on for Bush for the last 8 years.

Now that they equate Obama with Bush, one can only assume that they will prove to be a bedrock of support for the new administration.

Hell, they have all but endorsed Obama as a right ideologue - in the Bush/Cheney mold. Any moment now, the 30% of the population that thought Bush was doing great, will be standing up in support of our new commander in chief. Unless of course, they think we are no longer at war? Hmmm. . . .

Statler N Waldorf said...
This post has been removed by the author.
STepper said...

The photo is Bruce Palin, not Newt Palin.

Bruce Palin is an anagram of a word that is a very important part of this thread.

STepper said...

REpUBliCan

BRUCE palin

C.S.Strowbridge said...

Robby said... "I could see Gingrich as a Cheney-style VP..."

"That being said, unless things get much, much worse, I don't see how Obama loses in 2012."

I agree with both points. Newt might go for V.P. in 2012 and use that to increase his national standing for a run in 2016.

Chris1974 said...

As much as I disagree with Gingrich politically, I have a hard time disliking him. Maybe it's that he is all too human. That said, Gingrich is not only unelectable in a general election, he is probably unelectable in a primary. And the reason has less to do with his moral shortcomings as it does his kind of intellect. He is the type that impresses people like George Will, not the average Joe the Plumber type that dominates in Republican primaries. Those people like Palin and Huckabee (and maybe Jindal), not serious conservative intellectuals like Gingrich.

Steven said...

@Statler:

I find your argument more plausible and substantive than the "one bad speech" argument. If those things are true, then he will clearly have trouble gaining ground or winning a national election.

As a non-Louisiana resident, I'll plead ignorance on Jindal's speaking skills. I've found myself reasonably impressed by his Sunday talk show appearances, though. Perhaps he's the opposite of Palin; I think Palin is an excellent public speaker but a terrible interview, at this stage.

Pragmatus said...

Nothing could be better for the Democratic Party than to have these people as the best the GOP has--

Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich
Sarah Palin
Rush Limbaugh

E said...

I know that this post was intentionally speculative. But still, you didn't do your research.

Jindal's poor performance has weakened Mr. Gingrich's hand as a kingmaker in the short term because Gingrich had already positioned himself as something of a Jindal-booster. The message similarities between the two of them (and Steele as well) dating back to the summer time have been telling. They're "solutions" conservatives.

Now if his intention all along was to run for the nomination himself, well then he's better off. But it doesn't seem like either of us think that's what Newt has in mind.

Pragmatus said...

The GOP reaching back into its past to pick Newt Gingrich as a presidential candidate would be like the Democrats reaching back to pick George McGovern.

Don't forget that it was the GOP itself that threw Gingrich to the wolves.

obsessed said...

I think the real power behind the GOP throne is the three radio commentators-Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity.

I agree, except Beck might be behind O'Reilly, and Savage.

I would really like to see Nate tackle the possible outcomes of a Republican party completely controlled by these guys. Or even one of them running in 2012. What is their demographic ceiling? How good are the chances of them marginalizing the Republican party to the point that it has no more chance of winning than Nader, Paul, Buchanan, etc.?

Todd Dugdale said...

LFC wrote:
At this point, their only "strategy" is to hope that Obama fails and then jump up and down screaming "I told you so."

To amplify on that, I would say that "I told you so" is one of the least effective political messages.

Think about how you feel when someone says that to you. It inspires resentment and drives a wedge between you and the person saying it.

If the economy really is significantly worse in 2010 or 2012 than it is now, saying "I told you so" will be seen as quite "unhelpful".

Obama went to great pains to avoid saying "I told you so" on Iraq during the campaign. There is a certain solidarity in being able to able to say "I was suckered just like you were". It puts people instinctively on your side, where "I told you so" makes them feel inferior and the speaker look smug.

peter said...

There is hardly anything more transparent and calculated than the Republicans' effort to appear inclusive of minority groups by putting Bobby Jindal and Michael Steele out front. But it doesn't seem to be working all that well for them....

Kket said...

@"I agree with both points. Newt might go for V.P. in 2012 and use that to increase his national standing for a run in 2016."

Just checked: Newt would be 73 years old in the summer of 2006 -- it ain't gonna happen....

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

I repeatedly hear Jindal say conservatives will provide conservative solutions to the problems Americans face. I have yet to hear any conservatives openly come up with any solutions to our health care or even attempt to.

Health care is draining not only the Govn't but also families across the U.S. American's want solutions to health care.

Republicans run on Govn't isn't the solution, it's the problem. If Republicans can't provide solutions, why would American's turn to them to solve these problems?

mark.s said...

@Statler,

You live in Louisiana? Huh... yet your first post here said that Jindal handily beat Blanco to become Governor. Not true -- not at all. In fact, Jindal lost to Blanco when they ran against each other, the only time Blanco ran. After Katrina, Blanco decided not to run, and was seriously behind in the polls. Had she run, she might have lost to Jindal, but there's no way to know now, and perhaps she would have turned the polls around and won after all. Jindal is a weak candidate and there are lots of places in Louisiana where they don't like him and aren't sure what to make of him.

Jindal won the governorship here by beating an exceptionally poor field of mostly democratic candidates. And even then, in this red state that went nearly +20 for McCain, Jindal barely got 53% of the vote.

He may interview well, but he is so far away from being ready for prime-time that those of us who have watched him think it's laughable that he is considered any kind of possible contender. And now the word on the street here is that he's so busy being a national player that he spends almost no time governing, and his administration has been nothing short of bumbling on many, many issues.

Bobby Jindal may be smart, but he's not good at governing yet -- not at all. And by no means is ready for the national stage.

Jenny said...

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWW!!!!

Newt is will be 69 in 2012 and fatter then ever.

Alas, it's too good to be true. Huckabee and Palin will smoke Newt among the fundie votes. They just don't like triple divorces (ask Mayor 9/11).

Saint Dude said...

liberal_defender_of_freedom said, "Republicans run on Govn't isn't the solution, it's the problem."

Agreed. The GOP candidates are always ranting about how government is the problem, and how they are champions for private market solutions.

I am always left wondering: What are the private market solutions to health care, education, poverty, foreign policy, infrastructure, or even rising unemployment in the teeth of the current economic downturn? Is there a company or sector that we can turn to for solutions? If so, how can I send them some money so that they can get started?

Statler N Waldorf said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Evan Nelson said...

Mark and Statler,

Here's the test: How do you pronounce Chartres Street?

Steven said...

@liberal_defender_of_freedom, Saint Dude:

There have been conservative solutions to health care proposed. I agree that the GOP has done a terrible job promoting these things and has not focused enough on specific plans, preferring rhetoric instead of late. I would say that "specific plans" from the GOP basically stopped back in 2005 with Social Security privatization.

But there are ideas floating around. Check out this article from Ramesh Ponnuru:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1682269,00.html

Statler N Waldorf said...
This post has been removed by the author.
livemild said...

is jindal back from his meeting with pinocchio in disneyworld yet?
anyone know if that was a planned escape or just an escape?
nonetheless as others have said lindal is now a joke where as clinton just came off wonkish. much harder to recover being a joke.


didnt newt have an affair with sonny bonos widow?

mark.s said...

Statler,

It wasn't that I doubted where you live. I read your first post, the mistaken one about Jindal v. Blanco, then saw your later one saying you were from here and it sort of caught me off guard. That's all.

I actually live in BR, though next time I'm in NO, I might just take you up on your offer for coffee. Though personally I'd be more inclinded to meet at DBA. Sounds like we'd have some fun and similar views to talk about regarding politics.

and, to Evan, of course, "charters."

Juris said...

Chartres="CHARters"

livemild said...

chartres-
all that you guys pronounciation proves to me is that you are not french...

Furqan Nazeeri said...

Nate, that picture is hideous! I put together this flash morph...please use this instead as it's easier on the eyes!

http://altgate.com/gingrich_palin.swf

Statler N Waldorf said...

mark,

Despite my prolific posts, I'm kinda new to politics. I'm kind of a novice, but I know what an asshole looks like when I see one. I look at the current political situation and see one side that has become increasingly extremist, vindictive, and cruel. The Democrats don't impress me 100% either, but they're the only ones big enough to stop the GOP, so I guess I'll throw my lot in with them for now.

Guess that means we've got a common enemy. Since we're the minority in Louisiana politics, I guess we gotta stick together at least until the assholes are gone.

And I do love coffee, so come on down and pay me a visit sometime. This is a beautiful city, and it's always good to have another fr4iend to share it with.

Statler N Waldorf said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Nathan said...

Hey Nate,

There's something you didn't mention at all Newt's age. By the time the 2012 election comes, he'll be 69 years old. If the Republicans are looking for something new and invigorating, it seems counter intuitive to bring in someone almost as old as John McCain. You did, I guess, slightly hit on it by saying that it seems Conservatives just want his brain... But specifically, his age is, I think, a big issue. Obama is young and attractive. The Republicans should be looking for their own young and attractive candidate. ...Jindal seemed to be it, I..guess. But as you rightly state, that might not be the case anymore.

Saint Dude said...

Steven,

Thank you for bringing a bit of content to the debate.

However, the article that you cite was merely cheerleading McCain et al's health care proposal from the campaign. That was far from revolutionary or even constructive. Tax cuts are simply not going to get the job done.

They do nothing whatsoever to reign in costs. They do nothing to cover the poor to lower middle class workers that make up the bulk of the unemployed - as the republicans are fond of reminding us that these people pay little tax in the first place, do not benefit from traditional tax cuts, and can not afford coverage even with the proposed break. Combined with the elimination of tax cuts for employer provided health insurance, and we would have been assured to see an increase in the number of uninsured.

This is ideology. Not a constructive solution.

Pragmatus said...

Saint Dude...

You wonder--what are the private market solutions to health care, infrastructure etc? Well, you're lookin' at it! We are experiencing just exactly what the market does with problems that cost money (and thus profit) to fix--it ignores them.

wv ciali: Singular of Cialis

Penny said...

Diane Wiest is the next leader of the Republican Party?

I am a Fractal said...

The problem with any republican, including Newt, is that by the time people finally get to know them for what they are, they make for great material on negative ads. Take bush, 2008, for example.

nobody would be caught dead next to gingrich by the time that the republicans had to quietly replace him with dennis hastert, who, over a long period of time, also got the reputation he deserved for showing his true right wing wacko colors often enough.

I guess what keeps lying republicans coming back to power is that by the next generation, everybody has forgotten their last crimes... which is yet another reason they are against education... especially history lessons.

Brian said...

Saint Due said:
"I am always left wondering: What are the private market solutions to health care, education, poverty, foreign policy, infrastructure, or even rising unemployment in the teeth of the current economic downturn?"

Is it mainstream among Republicans to suggest a private market solution to foreign policy? I'm not even sure what that would mean.

I believe the best way to fix most of the aforementioned problems is to let each state try its own mix of government and non-government solutions. Education isn't like NASA, which only works if everyone chips in and we get one federal program.

In a few years I plan on moving to a state with a high quality of life, good jobs and education as against whatever taxes I will have to pay. I resent the federal government taking that opportunity away from me by implementing national plans too often and not letting the federal experiment play out.

Of course, some things are truly national challenges like the economic crisis and the environment but I hope Obama does not do what Bush did with NCLB: pass sweeping ideological legislation over states that did and states that did not vote for him. Increasing the stakes over who controls Washington only makes politics more partisan and ideological.

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

Was the Santelli CNBC rant staged?

Some think it was.

Statler N Waldorf said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Saint Dude said...

Bian -

It may have been a stretch to include foreign policy in the whole republican free market screed. But then again, maybe not. After all, wasn't it the republicans who have been trying to decrease the size of our military while simultaneously shifting more and more responsibility onto private contractors? Instead of saying foreign policy, I should have just said warfare.

As for education, I am at a loss as to why you would claim that the federal government has no place in the realm of education. The U.S. is nearly dead last in secondary education among industrialized nations. How long do you think we can keep that up, while maintaining the economic dominance that we have enjoyed for decades?

Leaving education to local whims is a sure recipe for disaster. Large segments of society are denied access to quality education because the local tax base does not support good schools, or because local administrators do not emphasize academic achievement. Of course the flat earth society can teach their children that the earth is 4000 years old, and that evolution, the big bang, and global warming are just conspiracy theories posited by nutty science types. But is that remotely a good thing?

The Religious Left said...

@Susan: You are correct:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/01/european-model-shows-downside-green-jobs-creation/

Go figure. Red Alert Red Alert. Half truths in sector 9: "Greening costs too much." "Every solution costs too much" "Must. Lower. Taxes. Wealthy. Must. Save. Wealthy! Help! Offshore. Accounts. Help! Foxtards!" Alert. Alert. Prepare vipers for launch. Send Alert to MM HQ. Ready Truth Bomb and Phasers.

Seriously, I don't think Gingrich stands a chance, especially after the "divorce papers in the hospital" incident vis a vis the family values meme gets shoved back in his face in a national campaign. He is destined for more local access community college history classes, methinks. If he were a fearless renegade superhero, like Pat Buchanan, he'd take on Maddow. Most limelight conservatives are too chickenshit to sit in the same room with her or Keith because they know their heads will be handed to them garnished with facts.

The Religious Left said...

Slick Romney is the only one who seems "palatable" in theory, just because he's so dashing and... ahem... white. But, so what.

'Bama's gonna clobber whomever they throw at him, so they might as well look for their Walter Mondale du jour.

Anyone thinking this country is incapable of recovering with sound leadership is either needing EMDR therapy or is just another Limbaugh dittohead; even if HE finally decides to put his money where his diarrhea plagued mouth is and run (and I hope he does), it will be the last straw for the GOP. Moderate Republicans will either defect to the Democrats and be a vocal and effective "Blue Dog" coalition or slide of into independents, effectively ending their dominance. Possibly, maybe, there will then be a more fertile soil (at least in the House) for elements of a multiparty democracy with the Democrats in firm control, yet allowing for and respecting even the right wing spin off of the old GOP as well as possibly a real Green or Libertarian party, on top of vestiges of the old Rockefeller/Ford GOP. The executive branch will be in the hands of the Dems for the conceivable future unless and until someone else offers more substance than the present group of pinheads opposing them. If we can get to a point where we are energy independent, value education for EVERY child, have a sane and accessible health care system, and, oh yeah, clean up the little mess we made in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan, not to mention places like Darfur and Somalia, then we ought to be in good shape. Brunch in America, baby.

polls_apart said...

It seems I only post when I feel obvious misstatements have been made:

@Statler:
Under 35's do not always skew Democratic. In the 1980's, the youth vote was enthralled by the charismatic Ronald Reagan. This cohort is still probably Republican-tilting, since numerous studies indicate that one's formative political experiences remain imprinted for life.

@Fractal:
Republicans did not replace Newt quietly with Hastert in 1998. They initially tried Robert Livingston (IIRC, he was from LA; perhaps you could help me out here Statler), but he fell afoul of an extramarital affair and only then did Hastert become Speaker of the House.

WV: curisoo: Like Alice in Wonderland, I guess.

susan said...

Please google "what me worry" and take a look at the pictures. The real ringer for Bobby Jindal is ALFRED E. NEUMAN!

Brian said...

Saint Dude said:
"As for education, I am at a loss as to why you would claim that the federal government has no place in the realm of education. The U.S. is nearly dead last in secondary education among industrialized nations. How long do you think we can keep that up, while maintaining the economic dominance that we have enjoyed for decades?"

I don't understand how saying a problem is widespread implies a federal solution is needed, particularly when the area is already subject to extensive federal involvement. I don't think that the federal government has no place in the realm of education, just a much reduced one. Also my argument was about the best way to improve education, not that it is not necessary for economic dominance and can be ignored.

Many countries do better than us at secondary education, to the extent we cannot import their systems it is because of cultural differences and not cost (since they almost uniformly spend less than we do). Isn't it possible that cultural differences also exist from state to state, such that centralization in Washington has its own problems?

The U.S. is failing at secondary education but doing much better at higher education through a mixed state/private model. Why is it a good idea for the federal government to shut every state off from experimenting with something more like this at the secondary level (at least by taking that state's citizens' taxes and then not funding that state's non-compliant programs)? But above all, since we are paying so much and getting such poor results, it seems the problem is efficiency, and I think the best way to fix that is with competing, distinct systems and states copying what works in other states, while adapting it to their own particularities.

Leaving education as it is has been a recipe for disaster. I think states are large enough entities to try out programs in without requiring each locality to fund itself. Obviously forcing funding and offering curriculum control at the smallest level would be nonsensical, but you have taken my argument to a ridiculous extreme. Just because I think it is a good idea to take education from the federal government to allow experimentation does not mean it is a good idea to take it to the most local possible level.

I am not so much a doctrinaire libertarian. If a state has a great answer for a public problem I would want mine to copy it. However, I am made suspicious when liberals can't make certain policies (especially health and education) work in their own states and then try to implement them at the national level instead. Is the problem with Vermont or Connecticut or New York or California's systems that the States are too small for a comprehensive solution? Or that the Democrats haven't had enough power? Or that the states are too poor? Can't we just let the states have their money back, and wait to force everyone to implement one policy after that policy at least has an extant record of success somewhere?

susan said...

@The Religious Left
You have a way with words: this made my day!

"their heads will be handed to them garnished with facts"

We could use a bit more of this in these days of George Will et al.

Mister Ray said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Statler N Waldorf said...
This post has been removed by the author.
The Religious Left said...

Ol' George has made too many baseball metaphors for his own good. He's turned into a curmudgeon, he's the- who's that guy with the WaPo- Broder the "Dean of Sunday Talkshow Journalists", ie, so enmeshed in the old power structure of DC. He's a bit more fair than any of the car salesmen and wanna be porn stars on Fox, I will say that. He's just part of a bygone era, but he is not as much an ideologue as much as what I've described above. The recent flap with global warming denial has decreased his stock a little too.

Why are people still listening to Karl Rove? is what I want to know. Republicans ought to despise him- his hubris and chicanery have all but destroyed their party. He's the one who ought to be in prison wishing for a pardon and he's still lying to the face of the American people on This Week.

The Religious Left said...

At least George and Karl understand that the "socialist" meme is useless and appeals only to the hard core right. Wow. Never thought I'd see the day. Tells you how much things have changed over 8 years.

Mister Ray said...

Rove may still be a murderer. The mysterious death of Rove's IT guy several weeks ago has yet to be resolved, to my knowledge. He was scheduled to testify against Rove and had reported threats before his plane crashed.
Any updates?

fred said...

So, Rove killed his IT guy and he jailed an innocent man, the former gov, and stole an election in AL. He also likely stole an election or two at the presidential level.

...hmmmmmm...I am generally no conspiracy theorist, but the AL stuff is pretty well proven...

Reagan Revolution said...

Nate, I emailed the following to you just before the election. Wanted to post it here to get your thoughts.

"Nate,

I have been a fan of your career since I began reading Baseball
Prospectus back in 2003 while I was still playing baseball in
college. You have a gift for objective statistical analysis and I have learned a great deal about the "game within the game" of
baseball through your work.

I recently heard about your new venture, FiveThirtyEight.com. As I
began to browse your site, I had two separate reactions. My first
reaction was that your tried and true methods of statistical analysis and data presentation carried over perfectly from baseball into politics. Very enjoyable to read.

My second reaction was similar to finding out my favorite baseball
manager believes in the sac bunt as a great weapon and thinks OBP is unimportant; namely, your support of Barack Obama. Nate, it is one thing to reject the failed leadership of George W. Bush, or to be skeptical of McCain/Palin. But supporting someone with a lack of a record of performance is a subjective leap of faith that contradicts your usual mode of objective information analyst.

The information on your site is often skewed, and you may not even
realize it. When you quote Palin you include her "ums" and "uhs" but omit them when quoting Obama, even though he "uhs" between just about every phrase. When Palin said small towns represent the real America, you broke down the cities she and Obama have visited by race and concluded that Obama's tour has been closer to the real America. But why break it down by race? Palin never said her cities were racially representative. What about work ethic, patriotism, culture, ideology? Then you have these impressionable college-age readers commenting how you proved Palin wrong, when all you did was provide irrelevant (but colorfully charted) data.

When McCain/Palin talk about small towns and Joe the Plumber, you say
it's gimmicky pandering, but when Obama talks about the middle class
it's the "right message", delivered "with discipline and grace." Nate, Obama is pandering just like every other politician. You're smart enough to know this.

Treat these candidates like a performance analyst evaluating shortstop prospects. Obama's past associations with Ayers, Wright, Odinga, and Rezko are red flags of a possible lack of judgement. It would compare to a shortstop prospect committing an unusually high number of errors in college and A-ball; red flags about his defense would be raised. (Does he then project as a 3B?) You wouldn't just gloss over this data if it were a baseball prospect
would you? Well then why would you do it for a politician?

Signed,
Reagan Revolution"

fred said...

Reagan-

Thanks for the nutball post, you can go back to Townhall now.

melissa said...

Brain,

I don’t know why you did not like No Child Left Behind. Its ideal came from a Pro Life born again Christian, who was love both by the libertarian’s conservatives and the social conservatives. NCLB was conservative by nature and it allowed states to promote a conservative ideal and values.

I personally don’t want the Free Market to run the military or run a war, something that conservatives like you loudly champion and called traitors and treasons i.e. Limbaugh, Malkin, and Hannity. The Free Market with limited government and letting the people governed sure has not work well in Iraq since 600,000 Iraqis and 4,000 American soldiers are dead. I am not sure how your conservatives values of Free Market and power to the people could has possibility work because all it did was killed 600,000 Iraqis along with 4,000 dead American soldiers.

Blackwater, Halliburton, and KBR, a great example of the Free Market with little control from the evil federal government has not done better then the Bush’s federal government in Iraq. I am not sure how giving 1 billion dollars to KBR to promote the Free Market values and power to the people in Iraq while poisoning and electrocuting our soldiers while overcharging the evil federal government means that the Free Market of KBR should be put into effect and given more power.

So are you advocating that we should follow the conservative principal of Bush’s free market by giving out federal dollars to free markets corporations like KBR, Halliburton to run our schools who are more effective of running the school then the evil federal government?

You know, conservatives would give Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans as an example of the failures of the federal government and that is why the state or the local levels are more effective at dealing with the problems. But guess what, the guy who was in charge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was an Arabian horse trainer, who has no experience whatsoever in federal management or preparedness. The guy who hire him did not think that qualification was important but being a free market, limited government, pro life conservatives was. The guy who hires him believes in limited government and probably agrees with Ronald Reagan philosophy of the government being evil et al.

Just because conservatives like you believes that the federal government can’t do anything right except when it comes to a woman’s reproductive organs and invading a foreign nation it doesn’t means that when you do come into power, you should do everything in your power to destroyed the government.

Whether or not you agree who is at fault for the Katrina fiscals, you have to agree with me that putting an Arabian horse trainer who has no experience in charge of FEMA was the fault of the Pro Life, conservative, limited government, and free market guy, Right? He should get some blame for putting an Arabian horse trainer in charge of FEMA?

Every time when conservatives like you talk about limited government, I just had this picture of the Arabian horse trainer being put in charge of everything, from the department of defense to FEMA while firing any qualified person who wishes to get the job because it would prove the effectiveness of the federal government. By the way, didn’t the D of Justice do that under Alberto Gonzales with the assistance of Monica Goodling, a 23-year-old law student from Liberty University?

I believe in effective government not destroying it. I would continue later, have to go to my public university.

markymark said...

RR,

How can you possibly complain about how biased the stats on 538 are when Nate got the election result just about spot on? Fair enough your own POV might have been trying to tell you the election would be closer than it looked, but Nate's analysis pretty much all the way through was dead on. You can complain about the political slant of the site, that is your prerogative, but to question the stats on the site seems very shortsighted.

Redshift said...

The GOP reaching back into its past to pick Newt Gingrich as a presidential candidate would be like the Democrats reaching back to pick George McGovern.

Also in that vein, Gingrich was the first Republican in a long time that Democrats were able to use successfully as a figure to run against (the way Republicans used Clinton.) For that reason alone, when he was musing about running in '08, I was really rooting for him.

DaveNY said...

RR, I realize subtlety may not be your forte, but Nate has always made VERY clear on this site where the numbers stop and the opinions begin. You can certainly take issue with the opinions offered on the site -- you have plenty good company, right and left.

But, like a true professional, Nate doesn't let his opinions interfere with the number-crunching, offering us an incredibly accurate, transparent, and detailed methodology.

In fact, if I recall, Nate somewhat *under*-estimated Obama's final performance, having Indiana hold to its bright-red history.

Redshift said...

On 60 Minutes, Jindal claimed that he turned McCain down, rather than the other way around, which might mark him as savvy enough to avoid being tagged with a failed presidential campaign, rather than a loser who couldn't even beat our Sarah Palin. Of course, there's no way to know if he's telling the truth.

Redshift said...

Statler:
I think the real power behind the GOP throne is the three radio commentators-Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity. Anyone they crown will be a strong contender for the GOP primary.

I'm not sure I buy that. None of them much liked McCain until he won, as I recall (except maybe Hannity.) I suppose there could be an argument that they could be kingmakers if they all agreed on a candidate, but since they tend to favor whoever feeds their egos the best, and in an election year they're unlikely to all choose the same top panderer.

(Also, I agree with obsessed that it would be O'Reilly, not Beck. Beck is a nutcase and not just in political terms like most wingnut broadcasters, and his ratings were so low that his show on CNN HN was a strong argument that cable news doesn't follow "free market principles.")

Redshift said...

Saint Dude:
This is ideology. Not a constructive solution.

You asked for their proposed solutions. Like most conservative solutions, they don't actually work, because they're based on an ideological conception of how the world should work, not how it actually does. But they have actually proposed them.

;-)

Reagan Revolution said...

DaveNY-

Nate's stats/projections are fantastic. NO argument there.

What I find interesting is how Nate decided to support Obama. For an analyst who prides himself on objective analysis to support a candidate without a record of performance is puzzling.

In baseball terms, Nate supported a pitcher with 10 innnings of college pitching experience to be the ACE of the New York Yankees.

Chris1974 said...

Reagan Revolution, not to be rude, but why are you still beating that dead horse? That isn't even remotely the subject of this post either. There have been President's elected with similar, or less, experience than Obama (like Lincoln and Kennedy) and it is Nate's prerogative to support who he wants. If you don't like that you don't have to visit the site. Further, there were people much higher up the ladder than Nate who were Obama supporters, such as Warren Buffett and Steve Jobs. I think the CEO of Google was a supporter. That's not bad company to be in.

But the fact IS Obama is President now. The time to make the argument you are trying to make was before the election, but those making that argument didn't convince enough people. That is what democracy is all about.

K said...

RR,

Are you really naive enough to think that the only significant qualification to be president is how much experience they have. Its ironic that you basically mimic the same old baseball myths and try to transfer them to politics. The conventional wisdom in baseball has always been that experienced "veterans" would give a team a better chance to win. This is why every year veterans that are really just average get contracts for millions more than they are worth.

However, if we actually look at the performance of baseball players and politicians, we see a similar tale. Experience is often vastly overrated. Yound upstarts, like Lincoln, Longoria, Obama, and Lincecum have significantly outperformmed their older peers.

Who would you rather have, Matt Weiters/Obama or Jason Varitek/McCain. Weiters is unproven, but he has the ability and skills to be very sucessful. Meanwhile, Varitek is a crafty old veteran, a great leader, and just "knows how to win." Unfortunatly, despite all the experience in the world, Varitek is horrible. John McCain is Jason Varitek. Wouldn't you rather choose someone who has the ability to be sucessful than someone who you know would fail?

markymark said...

RR,

So what, Nate is a Democrat? He's a Cubs fan as well. That doesn't mean his baseball analysis is wrong, or skewed, at least when dealing with statistics. And neither is his political statistical analysis skewed.

stephencrose said...

Two bits says the nominee will be a GOP centrist who wins election to the Senate over an incumbent Republican in 2010 and then does an Obama and captures the GOP nomination in 2012.
The current field is either too wingnut or lackluster and the also rans of 2008 won't cut it. I am sure the odds are against but I'll take 'em.

http://stephencrose.wordpress.com/

King Politics said...

GOP should have chosen Gingrich as the RNC chair. He at least has a vision; I'm not sure what Steele has.

Reagan Revolution said...

K-

Agreed - more experience doesn't necessarily mean better President.

But how do you know Weiters is going to be a good MLB player? Because of his minor league track record. That's why we knew Longoria and Lincecum would be good, too.

I saw nothing in Obama's "minor league" track record to indicate a great MLB career. I saw a telegenic gifted speaker, 2 memoirs, an uplifting speech in 2004, and past connections to Ayers, Wright, Odinga, and Rezko. That would be half a season's worth of mediocre Rookie ball stats, with quite a few walks and homers allowed.

This is the pitcher Nate wanted as his ace.

K said...

RR,

You continue to ignore the other side of the equation, the alternative was worse. We know John McCain would be a failure. None of his policies make any sense, he wouldn't of had the support of his own party, and he has shown no abilility to think intelligently about any policy decision that didn't involve the miltitary.

The fact that you include Obama's "relationships" to Ayers and Wright as negatives shows that you are coming from a flawed idelogical perspective. I, and a large part of the rest of the country, have no problem with Obama serving on a board with Ayers. And despite some obvious shorticoming, Wright is a much better associate then most of the religous figures the right has. Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, and Dobson have all said things much more offensive than anything Wright has ever said. John McCain spoke at Bob Jones University, one of the great bastians of bigotry, sexism, and racism in America. Why is that not considered a negative. McCain thought Sarah Palin was capable of leading this country. Nobody who respects an intellectual approch to the problems that face this country could agree with that decision. People like Sarah Palin represent the exact opposite way of decision making that Nate supports. Instead of using facts and numbers, they use their own flawed interpretations of a book written almost 2000 years ago. The choice to support Obama is a no-brainer when the other choice is so poor.

Brian said...

Gingrich makes Palin look palatable. He would insure a Dem victory in 2012 even for Biden. Obama would defeat Gingrich even if he accidentally hit the button and nuked half of the U.S. AND failed to get the economy going.

K said...

Stephencrose,

I actually think your right. Until the next congressional election, we will hear a ton about the Palins and Jindals as the 2012 nominee. But once the actual primaries start, the reality will change. Thanks to Gulianni, it will be very hard for a candidate who only speaks to the base to win the nomination. There will be no signficant Democratic primary to split independents with, which will make the overall voting block much more moderate. This election, the GOP primary was the sideshow. Next time it will be the main event. Some moderate will come in and win California, New York, etc just like McCain. The big difference is that I wouldn't be suprised if the nominee told the base to go to hell. Who else are they going to vote for? Mitt is probably the GOP's only opportunity to get someone with some appeal to the base that may also be able to reach out to moderates. However, he will have to completely redo his mainstream image in order to do this.

A pro-rich, populist agenda is simply unworkable unless you are able to include the coasts and there is no reason to think that someone who only speaks to the GOP base will be able to do this.

loner said...

Reagan Revolution—

You can't be serious. Senator McCain, whose only chance of winning in a Democratic year was to run on past performance, went from front-runner for the nomination to becoming the nominee only because evangelicals in Iowa and a former Mayor of New York didn't want it to be Governor Romney and then made Governor Palin his choice to a "heartbeat away" from succeeding him.

Based on their 2007-8 performance, Senator Obama was the easy pick.

Michael (mbw) said...

@RR- You seem to be making a fair-minded application of the theory that the best prediction techniques in politics and baseball are in general similar. If the theory that these money-ball techniques were good predictors of who would be a good politician were right, then Lincoln would have been a dud, Obama would already look incompetent as a candidate and administrator, Herbert Hoover would have been well above average, etc. So maybe the underlying premise is false. Maybe in politics the scouting reports are actually more accurate than the stats. Since the stats are so sparse and taken under highly variable conditions, that wouldn't be too surprising.

Statler N Waldorf said...
This post has been removed by the author.
markymark said...

RR said
I saw nothing in Obama's "minor league" track record to indicate a great MLB career. I saw a telegenic gifted speaker, 2 memoirs, an uplifting speech in 2004, and past connections to Ayers, Wright, Odinga, and Rezko. That would be half a season's worth of mediocre Rookie ball stats, with quite a few walks and homers allowed.
-----------------------------

I would prefer a football analogy. The choice the country kind of faced in 2008 was a big money free agent position player (think Linebacker or offensive line player) signing that everyone knew everything about, but people didn't like some things about (Clinton first then McCain) or a hotshot rookie QB that you don't know much about but what you've seen on tapes is fantastic. You know in your heart that at least one of the free agents is well past his prime (McCain) and that the other really hasn't done all that much and you have some pretty bad memories of them lodged in your mind from there first couple of years (Clinton). You also know that its a quarter backs league, and Obama is a pretty good QB. If you weren't as sure of Obama's rookie credentials, and many of us were pretty certain of Obama's credentials, then the Free Agent pick might seem tempting as the safe bet. But do you want to be the guy that passed on a Peyton Manning or a John Elway? (can you tell I have been watching too much NFL network recently?)

But that in some ways the choice in the last election- vote on past performance in a 'they deserve it' kind of way, or vote on future promise 'They have more talent'. Of course you might see it different, maybe you are seeing Obama right now as a Pre Superbowl Peyton/Eli Manning?

Brian said...

Melissa:

"I don’t know why you did not like No Child Left Behind. Its ideal came from a Pro Life born again Christian"

Maybe because I am not pro life, born again, or a christian.


"I personally don’t want the Free Market to run the military or run a war"

Me neither. I spent my post talking about principles for determining to what extent various fields should be federal, state and private. The military is something with the strongest argument for collectivization, which is why I did not use it as an example for arguing against the statism of commentators on this site. On anarchist sites, I might argue against them using the military as an example. That's why I used health and education as examples.


"So are you advocating that we should follow the conservative principal of Bush’s free market by giving out federal dollars to free markets corporations like KBR, Halliburton to run our schools who are more effective of running the school then the evil federal government?"

I advocate letting states decide. The federal government should not rule out for states that government may be the best way to solve some problems. I think competition from the private sector will make public schools better, like has happened in higher education. If not, we will see states with a unitary system do better than those with mixed or predominantly private systems, and other states will copy that or at the very least I can move there.


"you have to agree with me that putting an Arabian horse trainer who has no experience in charge of FEMA was the fault of the Pro Life, conservative, limited government, and free market guy, Right?"

No. It was the fault of George Bush, who greatly expanded the federal government to fulfill his accursed socially conservative agenda. This is what led to an increase in partisanship over the last few years: it raised the stakes over who held the white house. Now the left is gearing up to do the same thing with their unwanted spending.


"Every time when conservatives like you talk about limited government, I just had this picture of the Arabian horse trainer being put in charge of everything"

The point of limited government is that no one is ever in charge of "everything". Every time liberals talk about government control of health care, I get this picture of a community organizer in charge of my body! Let's lower the stakes of incompetence by narrowing the scope of government control so that incompetence won't kill us, and get smart people for where government is necessary.

I would continue later, have to go to my private university.

melissa said...

Now on the federal government argument, I do personally believe that the there should be limited federal/government involvement when it comes to a woman’s reproductive organs or what a person does in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

It sadden me that conservatives like you, Sarah Palin and her bases believes that the federal government should stay out of their pockets but wants a camera in everyone’s bedroom with a policemen watching it so no one are doing something that will offend them and a judge that is ready to put them in jail.

I personally don’t think that the state government is more effective at telling a person that if you married a person of different race (Loving v. Virginia) we will put you in jail, if you love someone of the same gender (Lawrence v. Texas) we will put you in jail, if you are a woman and you want to exercise your rights to your own reproductive organs (Griswold vs. Connecticut, Eisenstaedt v. Baird, Roe v. Wade, Skinner v. Oklahoma, Doe v. Bolton) we will put you in jail or lie to you.

Should education be reform, of course but I don’t believe that they should be hand over to Halliburton or Blackwater just because people like you think that they did such a swell job in Iraq, which I might add contributed to the death of 600,000 Iraqis and 4,000 American soldiers while costing the American taxpayers 10 billion dollars each month.

More than that, I also believe that there are time when the federal government should intervene over a state government, such as segregation (Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka), the right to married who you want regardless of their race (Loving v. Virginia), the right to your own reproductive organs (see case listed above), but most importantly, the right to personal liberty.

My question left to you is, are you arguing your point from a Ron Paul smaller government point of view or a Sarah Palin smaller government point of view? Ron Paul and his people, I can tolerate and has a better understanding because he is consistent with his views and even though he has some views I personally disagree with, I can respect him for his principal belief.

If you are a Sarah Palin limited government type, who wants to get the “government” out of your pocket but wants to regulate a personal behavior or criminalized a personal behavior you disagree with, then it would be difficult for me to understand because you are arguing that the federal government is more effective as telling people who to love, whether or not they can use artificial birth control, and if they love someone of the same gender they should be fire.

If you are a Ron Paul smaller government type, I respect and tolerate you but if you are Sarah Palin/Jindal/Bush smaller government type, I find it difficult to respect you, philosophically speaking that is.

Besides, I would personally want a community organizer who was a constitutional law professor and has several experiences in social equality fixing my health care system then an Arabian horse trainer and a beauty queen putting me in jail because I did not practice abstinence only and choosing to use a condom when I engaged in premarital sin.

Brian said...

Melissa:

"It sadden me that conservatives like you, Sarah Palin and her bases believes that the federal government should stay out of their pockets but wants a camera in everyone’s bedroom with a policemen watching it so no one are doing something that will offend them and a judge that is ready to put them in jail."

1) Such a law could not be passed anywhere in twenty first century America.
2) Such a law could not be enforced because it would be unconstitutional.
3) I think you are seriously mischaracterizing the beliefs of people we don't agree with.
4) Here the judiciary properly prevents states from imposing on their citizens' private liberty. I don't think this is a good line of argument for expanding federal regulatory power at the expense of state regulatory power and individual freedoms.


"...or lie to you."

I am not sure what this means.


"Should education be reform, of course but I don’t believe that they should be hand over to Halliburton or Blackwater..."

Guess what? There is no majority in any state for handing over education to these particular companies! The democratic process needn't be feared, it weeds out bad ideas if given the chance. I think Kaplan could do a better job putting together a school than the teachers' union.


"My question left to you is, are you arguing your point from a Ron Paul smaller government point of view or a Sarah Palin smaller government point of view?"

If the answer to this question is not obvious from my previous responses I am less than impressed with your public university.


"Besides, I would personally want a community organizer who was a constitutional law professor and has several experiences in social equality fixing my health care system then an Arabian horse trainer and a beauty queen putting me in jail because I did not practice abstinence only and choosing to use a condom when I engaged in premarital sin."

I was thinking earlier of an unqualified person in general making medical decisions as a bureaucrat, not Obama. I should have made that more clear.

You should try fairly stating Palin's social positions, they are bad enough without your ridiculous exaggeration of them.

Mike in Maryland said...

RR,

So experience in a candidate counts?

How's this for experience:

State legilator - 2 years
US Congressman - 10 years
Ambassador to Russia - 2+ years
US Senator - 10+ years
Nominee to US Supreme Court - he turned down the nomination
Secretary of State - 4 years
Ambassador to the Court of St. James's (Britain) - 3 years

Impressive experience?

The candidate? James Buchanan, the 15th President of the United States, and considered one of the five WORST Presidents in the history of the US.

andy r said...

this is the email i sent to the good gov after his speech still waiting for a reply

I listened to your speech last night. You made the following remark "Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not by government bureaucrats."

We have a private health care insurance plan. The insurance company will not let my wife have the prescription drug in the dosage recommended by our doctor. He has been my wife’s doctor for over 30 years. The insurance company wants my wife to speak to one of their pharmacists for alternative drugs. This would be done over the phone without an exam.

Is the Republican Party serious about "Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients," or is it OK for insurance companies to interfere while it is not OK for government bureaucrats?

Can we expect legislation from the Republican Party to keep insurance companies from interfering in the health care decisions "made by doctors and patients,"

In addition does "Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not by government bureaucrats.” mean the Republican Party will not longer try to overturn Roe vs Wade.

Overturning Roe vs Wade will give government bureaucrats the final decision in health care decisions.

Remember there is no Right to Live without the Right to Health Care.

I am looking forward to your quick response to my questions. Thank you for you time.

Statler N Waldorf said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Statler N Waldorf said...
This post has been removed by the author.
fred said...

smart. artilculate. good looking. elected: Mitt Romeny. I know he is not the conservative conservatives want but he seems to stand much taller than those mentioned in the comments.

emba- said...

看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,廣告,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,燒肉,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,住宿,民宿,飯店,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA

AxelDC said...

Gingrich is political poison. He survived a few coup attempts before the 1998 elections forced him to resign as House Speaker. Most Americans remember him as a loathsome individual who drove Republican Clintonphobia to extreme ends.

I doubt most Republicans have much love for the Gingrinch. He was the most hated Republican in America before Bush/Cheney/Rove worked so hard for that title.

If he does win the nomination, it would be political suicide for the GOP. I doubt he would get much more than 35% of the vote and not win a single state, including his own Georgia.

Jindal came across as naive and unready for the national spotlight. Unlike Palin, he has potential, but he is not there yet. Gingrich is a tried and tested villain to most Americans. None of them have a chance against an even moderately unpopular Obama.

If Romney can recast himself as a moderate Republican with business savvy, he may have a chance if Obama is unpopular. However, he would first have to get over the huge hurdle of winning Southern Evangelicals. He would do just slightly better than a gay hippie in the South because of their anti-Mormon bitterness. I don't see it happening, and the GOP has a tendency lately of taking lemons and squeezing them into their own eyes.

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,