I wish this debate had happened sooner. Although it definitely helped that there were fewer candidates on stage – it’s not an accident that fewer candidates and no absurd timeclock led to a far more substantive debate than we’ve seen in the past.
I haven’t seen a lot of the post-debate spin from other people yet, but what little I saw seems to argue that Newt Gingrich put himself back in contention. Maybe. He definitely had some strong moments, but he started weak and was weakest against Romney, the one guy he really needed to take. And at this point, his volatility is the issue, not his debating skills. I’m not sure he can recover from that.
I thought Paul did the worst he’s done in a lot of ways. He really got wrapped around the axle on some fo the foreign policy stuff, and while it won’t matter to his supporters, it will, in my view, solidify his already low ceiling.
Perry and Santorum had some nice moments, but I thought Santorum came off as just too petulant too many times. But then, I’m not a fan of Santorum, he and I have serious philosophical differences (here he is hatin’ on libertarians) and so I’m already disposed to not caring for what he has to say. I also don’t think he’s going anywhere.
Perry had some great moments – I was sort of hoping it would be enough to sustain him, but I’m not sure he can recover either at this point.
I think Romney still came out on top – he was commanding and forceful, but I also think that the previous attacks from the other folks up there have made him much, much better. Hard fought primaries are a good thing for exactly this reason. It was getting so ridiculous that I had come to hope that it would all be over sooner rather than later, but I’m again re-assessing that. Each one of the candidates on stage tonight had better answers and ideas in one area or another than Romney (and they all had worse ones, too), and the more airtime those ideas and answers get, the better Romney will be if he winds up being the nominee. Done right, the forge of debate can strengthen good ideas, destroy bad ones, and ultimately drive better policy, and I think this debate, while not perfect, moved us in that direction.
Click to read the whole, real-time wrap up. [Read more →]
Over the weekend a Ron Paul supporter dropped off this brochure at my house. And by “dropped off” I mean “jammed it under my front door so it was actually inside the house when my wife got home.” (Note to all campaign volunteers – when you do something that creates even the slightest appearance of you having actually broken into my house, I am LESS likely to vote for your preferred candidate.)
It’s an interesting brochure – lots and lots of charts and numbers and YouTube suggestions. It’s apparently NOT paid for by the Paul campaign, but is rather an “independent” expenditure by volunteers who buy the pieces and then distribute them on their own. (More details here.) That seems a little weird to me – what would be the point of distributing campaign literature in such a roundabout way? Maybe it’s just an attempt to make it look more grass-rootsy, I don’t know. But my flags always go up a little when a candidate doesn’t have to claim expenditures – and the source of that money – on their regular reports.
~~~
But that’s not what really got my attention. Instead, it’s an issue with one of the images that in all fairness, you have to be pretty nerdy to spot right away. [Read more →]
Steve Sebelius wrote a nice piece – from the left, no less – which correctly points out the tremendous danger of President Obama’s completely lawless non-recess recess appointment of Richard Cordray to be the Director of the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But then Sebelius tries to find a Constitutional fig leaf for the President to still ignore the Senate’s rejection of Cordray by citing the “extraordinary circumstances” clause of Article 2, Section 3.
It just doesn’t – nor should it – work that way.
Such a secondary option would still do violence to the Constitution – certainly its spirit. [Read more →]
A reader recently E-mailed me with this question, and I thought the night before the Iowa caucus would be a time to reflect on it here.
Is there a good “conservative” “Republican” in the race? As much as I’d like to think the guy currently in office is vulnerable, the Republicans seem to be trying harder to make some kind of a point this year than actually run a candidate that can beat him. The collection of candidates the GOP is running out there is almost humorously bad, in my opinion. Your thoughts?
The short answer is, “Not really, but several are ‘good enough’.” But as disappointing as that may be, there are silver linings to be found in that fact.
If you’re a Republican living in Washoe County, be part of the conversation and the solution. Register for the 2012 Caucus today! Remember, the caucuses will be Saturday, February 4, 2012, with registration/check-in starting at 9:00 AM.
Click here to go straight to the registration page.
All the info you need to learn about the caucus – your location, times, and how to conduct your precinct meeting itself – can all be found at WashoeCountyGOP.org. Please bookmark it, share it, tell your friends, and then bring them along to the caucus.
The other day these guys were protesting on the sidewalk between my office and the courthouse. I thought they were just a regular #Occupy protest, and most of them looked the part. (Yes, how you dress matters, hippies. If you want to be taken seriously, shower, shave, take the fishing tackle out of your face, pull the masks down, and don’t otherwise dress like a hipster clown.) Apparently, though, the protests in this particular case were sparked by a woman who was frustrated with the bank after they wouldn’t work with her on a loan modification on a loan on a second house, although it DID turn into an “official” #Occupy Reno event.
Republicans in Clark County have been up in arms over some new election regulations being pushed through by the Secretary of State’s Office over the holidays. I admit, the timing is very suspicious, and should alone raise all kinds of red flags. But the article on it is frustrating, because nowhere is there any hint of the actual substance of what is being protested. What, exactly, are the proposed changes and how will they harm Republicans/Democrats/minorities/America/what- or whoever? [Read more →]
On my deployments to the Persian Gulf, the Iranians would come take a look at us from time to time. This is a patrol boat watching us as we conducted anti-smuggling boarding operations in 2001. They would also send out "fishing" dhows to disrupt fueling operations just by getting in the way and other sorts of things. And this was a "quiet" time in US-Iranian naval involvement - the incident with the USS Vincennes was sparked by out and out attacks from similar Iranian patrol craft.
I respect where Ron (Anderson) is coming from, but I’m with Ace. [Read more →]
A couple of days ago I came across this really nice piece on Clark County’s Senator Mike Roberson. We’re extremely lucky to have this guy in Carson City. In fact, I would argue that the entire Senate GOP Caucus – with its nice mix of veterans and folks with fresh passion – was the most effective entity in Carson during the last legislative session, short of the Governor himself. [Read more →]
On this Christmas Day I come bearing the gift of Cuteness! If this little video doesn’t help put you in the Holiday Spirit, I just don’t know what can.
And just for fun for the nerdier amongst my readership, here’s a theoretical astrophysicist with the scientific background of Lillian’s story.
Merry Christmas and a wondrous New Year to all my wonderful friends and family – I’m so blessed to have you all in my life. Thank you and God bless to everyone of every political (and non-political) stripe who makes me think, who teach me new things every day, and who make life so wonderful and interesting. And thanks to all the people who have to work today – police, military folks both here and abroad, the folks at CVS who saved a Christmas dinner of mine when I ran out of butter a few years ago, and everyone else who makes America worth living in.
This is a funny little lesson on getting one’s facts straight.
Today, I noticed that Chuck Muth had written a blog post about me, one which is just a straight up, flat out, verifiable flasehood. There’s no other word for it. I understand he’s upset with me for exposing his Republican-harming unethical conduct in the past, but that’s no reason to get all libelous. When you write about politics with some angry, personal grudge, your blinders will be on and you’re going to trip over your own feet. Such was the case with Muth today.
Mitt Romney has always been my default candidate in this race. He’s acceptable, good enough, has some points about him I really like, could beat Obama, and ultimately would be a vastly better President than the current one. And his resume is full of taking economically failing institutions and slashing their waste until they’re successful and profitable again – is there a better job description for POTUS in this election?
But he’s only the default. I’m still looking. I’d like to see if we can do better. And the reason is stuff like this is:
Requiring people to have health insurance is “conservative,” GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it. [***]
“Personal responsibility,” Romney said, “is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government.”
“There were two options in my state,” he said. “One was to continue to allow people without insurance to go to the hospital and get free care, paid for by the government, paid for by taxpayers.”
“The best idea is to let each state craft their own solution because that’s, after all, the heart of conservatism: to follow the Constitution,” he said.
Ugh. This is the problem with Romney – it’s not that he’s “too moderate,” it’s that he just doesn’t seem to have a clear or accurate sense of his own claimed philosophy.
THIS is who Kim Jong Il was. People who do this to children are evil, not "mercurial," and they do not deserve the benefit of having their own talking points repeated uncritically by western media. Shame on the AP. Shame.
PYONGYANG, North Korea (AP) — Kim Jong Il, North Korea’s mercurial and enigmatic longtime leader, has died of heart failure. He was 69.
“Mercurial”? “Enigmatic”? Are you frickin’ kidding me? How about “evil”? How about “crazy”? How about “murderous” or “terrorist sponsor” or “nuclear arms dealer to the Taliban/Iran/various & sundry Baddies”?
This AP article truly is one of the most reprehensible pieces of morally relativistic garbage ever to grace the interwebs. From the article we know all about how Kim Jong Il loved cognac and cigars. We hear all about how official state media is in mourning, and people are officially crying over his death. We read nothing about the legacy of one of the most evil men ever to inhabit the planet in the last century (and he’s got some mighty accomplished company in that regard).
I understand the desire to not speak ill of the dead, or to not revel in the end of a human life. But when we can’t celebrate (yes, celebrate, damnit) the end of such a horrific figure, then we have lost a very necessary sense of perspective as a culture – a loss which has very little good to say about our own future.
Ignoring judges was never all that popular in this country, and shouldn't be now.
I missed last Thursday’s debate where Newt Gingrich and Michelle Bachmann took aim at the Supreme Court, and indeed, the Federal Judiciary generally. But since then Newt has kept at it, and his answers make me incredibly nervous.
The principle of limited government means that government must be strictly limited – even if you like what the government (or the people currently in charge) would do with unlimited power.
Additionally, any stable and free government requires predictable rules and institutions. Liberty is not safe in a state of anarchy, but neither can it exist where powerful political figures can simply create, ignore, or “interpret” laws to mean whatever happens to be convenient at the time.
To be sure, the federal courts often get accused of doing exactly this, and often those accusations are even deserved. But Newt’s “solutions” to this real problem ignore the above principles, and would in the end be much, much worse than the status quo.
I’m very excited to announce that my quiet little corner of the Blogosphere is about to get a little less quiet. A new, national site called Politics in Stereo has just launched – the idea is to have a state-by-state lineup of various local points of view, and I’m very proud to have been asked to contribute. I’m especially excited because the other contributors so far include Nevada Blogging Bigs Steve Sebelius from Slash Politics, Hugh Jackson of the Las Vegas Gleaner, the inimitable Jon Ralston of, well, the whole of Nevada media, I think (but mostly the Las Vegas Sun), and my good friend Elizabeth Crum, who (among many other projects) has just re-launched her own blog, simply and aptly named E!!.
They even gave me this sweet badge!
I don’t always agree with these folks, obviously, but then, that’s the point. As always, I believe that the forge of rigorous debate strengthens good ideas, breaks apart bad ones, and makes this a better state and a better country.
"No thanks, I have enough supporters. I don't need all you Republicans. Or conservatives. Nope, don't need you Nevadans, either. Got any more Huffington Post bloggers for me, though?"
I feel like I’ve spent a lot of time lately on this blog complaining about the politics of subtraction practiced by the more (allegedly) rightward wing of the party. But it’s worth looking at the perils of subtracting from the other side of the equation, too.
A few of my more moderate Republican friends lament that Jon Huntsman hasn’t gained more traction, because only he, they argue, can pry all those in the center away from Obama. A few have even implied that he’s the only Republican they’d vote for over Obama. A few have somberly suggested he’s the only “adult in the room.”
But Huntsman doesn’t stand a chance, especially in Nevada, and it doesn’t have anything to do with where he sits on the political spectrum. Instead it’s a self-created and unsolvable math problem – Huntsman played the politics of subtraction, and he will lose on account of it.
That's it - I'm going to change my name to Jean Claude Van Damm and hang my own shingle...
I don’t understand why the following concept is difficult to understand: If you are are working for or with a particular candidate, and then you write and publish an opinion piece lovin’ on that candidate or hatin’ on his or her opponent, you must disclose that relationship if you want to maintain any credibility whatsoever.
Chuck Muth has inserted himself in yet another Republican primary race, this time a rural Senate seat, and again he’s publishing hit pieces on one of the candidates without disclosing a past or current consulting relationship with the other candidate. (It’s been widely reported that Muth has long done consulting work for Ed Goedhart, and Muth’s Citizen Outreach CEO Dan Burdish apparently worked out of Goedhart’s office at the Legislative building in Carson City while the Assembly was in session.)
Today, of course, is the 70th Anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Last year, the Reno Gazette-Journal carried a rather odd editorial (sadly, it doesn’t appear to be archived) which I thought painted a pretty inaccurate picture of what Pearl Harbor is like today. The editorial essentially argued that the attack had been forgotten, and the Navy had all but passed Pearl Harbor by. Update: The RGJ published almost the same piece again this morning – here’s the relevant passage:
Few reminders remain of the devastation of that day in 1941. The great battleships are gone to mothballs or scrap. The bustle of the modern naval base is elsewhere. There’s little activity — just the tourists (by some accounts, as many as half are Japanese) who have come to pay their respects to those who, in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s words, died on that “date which will live in infamy.”
I wrote a response of sorts at the time, sharing some pictures that I took when I was stationed there in December 1999 with some friends and co-workers. Unfortunately I was having some technical problems with my blog at the time, so I didn’t get to post it then, but I thought it would be worth sharing here now.
To get to the memorial, you have to take a small boat. In front of the memorial above the waterline is one of the mounts for one of her aft 14 inch gun turrets. (14 inches is the bore, not the length – BIG bullets!) Pearl Harbor isn’t actually that deep – only about 45 feet – so you can still see a lot of the ship’s remains from the memorial itself. Behind the memorial is the USS Missouri, which was moored there in the late 90’s as part of the whole memorial complex.
Jon Ralston wrote a fascinating column this weekend arguing for reforms to the Legislature that were inspired in part by NPRI’s recent lawsuit arguing that state employees cannot legally serve in the State Assembly or Senate. Primary among Ralston’s complaints is the part-time nature of the Legislature itself. He argues:
But the worst and most debilitating feature of the Legislature is that it is part-time, so conflicts, whether with public or private sector employment, are guaranteed. Critics often miss just how cancerous this can be to public policymaking, not just because lawmakers have to serve two masters but because lobbyists exploit the conflicts to skew votes or sully recalcitrant lawmakers in the media.
Ralston’s solution to this is to make being a legislator a full-time job, so conflicts are eliminated.
I admit that when I first heard about this lawsuit, I had a very similar thought. Ralston isn’t wrong when he identifies the methods of corruption in our current system. And there are other things he identifies that should be supported whole heartedly, like greater transparency in political donations.
But the problem is that his primary “solution” only addresses the “hows” of graft and conflict – the reasons we have so much corruption in politics thee days in the first place are far more fundamental. [Read more →]
