Politics, Government & Public Policy: December 2011 Archives
Ok, so I like Ron Paul and I'm glad he's in Congress, but you've got to admit he's a little crazy. However he's not so crazy that he actually thinks he can win the Presidency, as his investment portfolio reveals.
Here at Total Return, we've looked at hundreds of the annual financial-disclosure forms in which the members of Congress reveal their assets and trades - and we've never seen a more unorthodox portfolio than Ron Paul's. ...At our request, William Bernstein, an investment manager at Efficient Portfolio Advisors in Eastford, Conn., reviewed Rep. Paul's portfolio as set out in the annual disclosure statement. Mr. Bernstein says he has never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe. "This portfolio is a half-step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and nine-millimeter rounds," he says.
How would Ron Paul invest if he thought he would win? I don't know, but he would save the economy from the doomsday scenario he has prepared for, right? Or maybe he knows that his investments will be bad if he wins, and they're just a hedge against the off-chance that he won't be our next President.
I'll admit, I counted Rick Perry out after his big "oops" debate flub... but these two endorsements are pretty compelling. First, from Ace of Spades:
First, biographical and character details. Much of the More Informed cohort of the party seems to be giving these factors short shrift. I would suggest to such folks that a certain type of candidate tends to prevail in elections, and that type of candidate tends to have a positive narrative in biographical and characterological traits.Rick Perry did not marry his high school sweetheart. He married his grade school sweetheart. He has never been divorced as as far as I know there haven't been any rocky patches in his relationship.
Those who discount the importance of that, especially to women voters, are making an error, I think. ...
The media and liberals (but I repeat myself) will attack Perry, predictably, as stupid, but there is a strong rebuttal to such a claim: If he can't perform the duties of Chief Executive, then how is he's been successfully performing the duties of Chief Executive?
America, and especially the Republican party, has long favored elevating governors to the presidency. Governors are, after all, the presidents of single states. They have nearly the exact same duties and functions (including even maintaining and controlling the state national guards). They have similar executive powers and set the agendas for their respective legislatures. In the case of border states such as Texas, they even require some foreign policy making duties.
No job in the world really prepares someone for the Presidency. But one job, more than any other, comes fairly close to doings so.
So Rick Perry cannot handle high executive office?
Then how is it he's been doing just that for 11 years? ...
I remember that, by the third debate, people were complaining that they were sick of hearing about Texas producing 45% of all jobs created in America the last two years, and sick of hearing that Texas has created one million jobs while America has lost two million plus in the last ten years.
I understand that High Information voters, who knew this before Rick Perry announced it, might be "sick" of hearing about it.
But the fact of the matter is: That should have been said more, not less.
Very good points.
Next, from Mike Flynn:
Supporters of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have to face one inconvenient truth; they both failed when given the chance to govern. Gingrich rode an historic GOP wave into the Speakership in 1994 only to be ousted by his fellow Republicans just four years later. It was one of the more spectacular flame-outs in political history. Hastert and Pelosi lost the Speaker's gavel when the voters rejected them and their parties. Newt lost his when his GOP colleagues rejected him. He was given an unprecedented opportunity to reform entitlements and reverse our nation's fiscal rot and...he blinked. His subsequent "consulting" for Freddie Mac, support for the largest expansion of entitlements since LBJ, an individual health insurance mandate and TARP, among other things, only further disqualifies him. I'm not at all certain that he has the core conservative convictions or beliefs that could withstand the daily dramas of the Presidency.Mitt Romney only served one-term as Governor of Massachusetts because he wasn't going to win reelection. Keep in mind that Romney's term followed twelve years of GOP rule on Beacon Hill. Massachusetts voters were in something of a habit, since 1990, of voting for Republicans for Governor. That streak ended with Mitt. And, there were fewer Republican state legislators when he left office than when he entered it. ...
There is also a fundamental political problem with either a Gingrich or Romney nomination. The GOP wouldn't be able to campaign against the Wall Street bailouts nor the individual health mandate. They both supported these at one time or another. Does the party really want to remove those arrows from its quiver? Those two issues are a large reason why 60+% of Independents align themselves with the GOP now. I know people joke that the GOP is the "stupid party", but really? They really don't want to make those arguments against Obama? Aren't these two issues the defining issues of the upcoming election? ...
Perry has clearly been a good Governor. He has not, however, been a great candidate. His early campaign was too Texas-centric. We all know about his debate performances. He has positions I disagree with. And his campaign has made some steps I also disagree with. But, I believe he could be a great President. He understand the limits of government, the power of the private sector to create prosperity and the dangers government policies pose to that. And, I believe he understands these principles in a more fundamental way than the other candidates.
Read the whole things to get all the arguments for Perry. These endorsements changed my mind to the extend that they've put Perry back on the map for me.
Just because proportions and probabilities are measured with the same units (percentages) does not mean that they're equivalent or convertible. A proportion is a measurement representing the size of a subset relative to its whole. A probability is a measurement of the likelihood that a given event will occur. If you flip a coin ten times and get four heads (proportion = 40%) that doesn't mean that the probability that the next flip will be a head is also 40%, or 60%, or any other percent.
I say all that to point out the shoddy analysis of a recent Associated Press poll about President Obama by Ken Thomas and Jennifer Agiesta. The key offense is here:
Entering 2012, President Barack Obama's re-election prospects are essentially a 50-50 proposition, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. It found that most Americans say the president deserves to be voted out of office even though they have concerns about the Republican alternatives. ...The poll found Americans were evenly divided over whether they expect Obama to be re-elected next year.
For the first time, the poll found that a majority of adults, 52 percent, said Obama should be voted out of office while 43 percent said he deserves another term.
1. There's a huge difference between (a) "Americans say the president deserves to be voted out of office" and (b) "Americans were evenly divided over whether they expect Obama to be re-elected". (A) is a question about what should happen, in the mind of the individual being polled, while (b) is a question about what the person believes will happen based on the votes of millions of people. For example, it's very possible to think that Obama should win re-election but will not.
2. 52 percent to 43 percent is not "evenly divided" by any stretch of the imagination. If there is any 50/50 data in the poll that the "evenly divided" is referring to the authors never mention it. A 52%-43% election would be an historic landslide for the victor. (In 2008, Obama beat John McCain 52.9% to 45.7% in the "popular vote", a seven-point spread.)
3. If 52% of people really think that Obama should not be re-elected and 43% think he should be, that doesn't mean that Obama has a 52% probability of losing the election and a 43% probability of winning. If the poll response accurately represents the view of the people who show up to vote, then Obama has a 100% probability of losing the election. If Obama gets 50% of the votes minus one, and his opponent gets 50% plus one, Obama will 100% lose.
4. Journalists really need to understand statistics before they "analyze" them.
I'm sure the #OCCUPY people will love President Obama's elitist perspective on his children:
Our kids are going to be fine. And I always tell Malia and Sasha, look, you guys, I don't worry about you -- I mean, I worry the way parents worry -- but they're on a path that is going to be successful, even if the country as a whole is not successful. But that's not our vision of America. I don't want an America where my kids are living behind walls and gates, and can't feel a part of a country that is giving everybody a shot.
1. Of course the President's kids are on a path to be wealthy and famous -- their father is the President of the United States! Without President Bill Clinton, do you really think Chelsea Clinton would have gone to Stanford and Columbia, or serve on two boards of directors, or be a "special correspondent" for NBC News? Do you think Hillary Clinton would have been elected Senator from New York or appointed as Secretary of State? Duh, no. Ex-presidents use their power and fame to make tons of money and share their prestige with their family members.
2. How could "the country as a whole" not be successful? Isn't Obama President of it? If Obama and his family will be fine regardless, does that mean he doesn't have any "skin the game" as he is fond of saying?
3. Whether America as a whole is "successful" or not, I predict that Obama and his family will continue to live behind walls and gates long after his term as president ends.
4. The last sentence doesn't really make any sense. Why wouldn't his kids feel a part of a country that is giving everybody a shot? Does Obama "feel a part" of America now? Or is he worried that his kids won't because they'll be so wealthy and famous? Is Obama poised to renounce America if it doesn't meet his standards for "giving everybody a shot"?
(HT: James Taranto.)
