The claim that Romney can’t get above 25 per cent is bogus. He is now polling above 30 per cent nationally. In any case the 2012 field is far more competitive and numerous than the 2008 field.
Category: US Politics
Another powerful Ron Paul ad
Posted by – 7 January, 2012
Ron Paul practices textbook negative campaigning, and I like it.
And Newt is complaining about Romney?
Posted by – 5 January, 2012
From last night:
There is a lot anger against Gingrich and understandably so, but at this point going after him is a little bit like flogging a dead horse. Gingrich has no hope.
What was Rupert Murdoch thinking?
Posted by – 4 January, 2012
Why did Murdoch open a Twitter account and tweet days before the Iowa primary that Rick Santorum was the best Republican candidate? I can offer one explanation. Murdoch was afraid that Romney would win Iowa and thereby close out the Republican primary process. Murdoch saw Santorum on the rise and so thought to give him a push along to make Iowa and therefore the primary process a contest. I don’t see Murdoch being naturally attracted to Santorum’s brand of social catholic conservatism. So Murdoch’s endorsement was certainly not motivated by ideology.
The Republican primary process is Fox News’ ratings bread and butter. Conservatives are not exactly going to turn on to MSNBC or any other cable network to see what is happening in the process. A Romney victory would kill ratings for months to come and so Murdoch tried to spice things up. Santorum is also a paid up Fox News contributor – which I have no problem with, it merely constitutes circumstantial evidence to support my claim.
Obviously it was a tight contest with Romney winning by only 8 votes. I’m not suggesting that Murdoch is the reason Santorum did so well however, merely speculating on Murdoch’s motivations.
Watching Fox News’ coverage of the primary you’d think that Romney lost even though he won. Part of the commentary bordered on product placement for anyone other than Romney, instead of considered factual based analysis. Apparently Romney needed to win by a bigger margin than 2008 for Iowa to be considered a success, even though the field in 2012 is far more competitive than in 2008. Karl Rove was the main exception to this flawed thinking. Romney won in a state he was not expected to win and at various stages fended of challenges from Pawlenty, Bachmann (won the Iowa straw poll, Romney did not even contest it), Trump, Perry, Cain and Gingrich, with last minute challenges from Paul and Santorum. Only 1 month ago Romney was polling as low as third place in Iowa. It was a great victory by Romney so much so that Perry and others are even thinking of skipping Romney’s strong hold of New Hampshire and going straight to South Carolina. Despite their best efforts I think Romney will win the nomination. If Romney can win in Iowa he can win in most places prior to Super Tuesday, which this year is not so super. This again falls to Romney’s organisation and funding strength for a long campaign, if need be. By Super Tuesday though it will be clear that the nomination is a fait accompli. Disappointing for ratings and political junkies – which includes me – good for Romney.
Am I my brother’s keeper?
Posted by – 19 December, 2011
In the beginning, the tone of the media was very positive in support of the Iraq war. The western world was still largely aggrieved following 9/11 and taking action against any purported enemy, no matter how tenuously linked to the crimes of 9/11, certainly brought relief to a shaken western world. In the absence of any direct action, we felt like vulnerable little lambs just hoping the wolves didn’t pick us next. But, as the gears of war started to turn in our favour, suddenly we were back in control, we were calling the shots, and we felt truly powerful.
The sugar rush of this increased confidence initially gave George W Bush’s popularity a boost to 65%. However, the media would quickly turn permanently negative and has been running down the former US president and the Iraq war virtually every day since. This narrative continues today where the media seems to celebrate any negative news coming out of Iraq. With the troop withdrawal now complete, all we hear is how bad it has been.
But is this fair and balanced? No. What’s missing from the analysis is the ‘opportunity cost’ of not intervening in Iraq. Now war is ugly, and it is my personal belief we should err on the side of peace wherever possible. But the bottom line is this, without hyperbole, some people in this world are truly evil.
Enter Saddam Hussein:
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator responsible for the deaths of over 1.3M of his own people, with cold blood runing through his veins he murdered over 40 members of his own family, detained and tortured political prisoners, used chemical weapons to commit genocide against a Kurdish minority, and while in his formative years as a secondary student he killed a distant cousin by shooting him in the head. Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein? Absolutely. But how much so? Based on extrapolating the casualty rates during two discrete periods of time, (Saddam Hussein’s reign vs the Iraq war), on average, 108.4 extra lives were saved per day (see below). As a result, the opportunity cost of not intervening in Iraq is that 345,796 more people would be dead. From this Iraq has at least 345,796 reasons to sing ‘God Bless America’, and two more if you include freedom and democracy.
References:
- Wikileaks Iraq War Logs – http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,724845,00.html
- Iraq Body Count Project – http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
- Infoshout – http://www.infoshout.com
- Whitehouse Release – http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-1.html
Who is flip-flopping now?
Posted by – 1 December, 2011
Just waiting for Newt’s fourth wife to reveal herself. You know, the one we don’t know about yet.
Mark Steyn:
….the idea of Newt as the Republican presidential candidate is, I have to say, extremely dismaying to me.
Romney: ‘No big carbon tax’
Posted by – 23 November, 2011
Can’t help but think that Romney is alluding to Tony Abbott’s ‘great big new tax’ line for the carbon tax.
An example of twisted logic
Posted by – 29 September, 2011
WSJ columnist James Taranto asks:
Apparently a leading Democrat called for the suspension of elections for two years so policies can be implemented without recourse to the people. Taranto goes on:
The technocratic approach to government…in which panels of experts make decisions insulated from democratic politics–has been central to progressivism in its various iterations for about a century. It has a parallel in the business world in the culture of management consulting. That is the culture that produced Mitt Romney.
This is the logic: experience in management leadership = competency = detail plans for success = technocratic = bad. It gets worse.
…the purpose of a business is to make a profit. Sometimes the best way to do this, especially when the enterprise is faltering and needs to be turned around, is to concentrate power in the hands of experts. The purpose of the government, by contrast, is to preserve freedom.
Thus in the political realm, one should always be suspicious of concentrations of power. Is Romney?
So business success = profit = undemocratic = bad.
Based on Taranto’s logic: anyone that has ever been successful in business through a profit making venture based on detailed ‘technocratic’ plans is unfit for public office. The juxtaposition for this of course is Obama, who has no business experience, never made a profit or implemented a plan before becoming President.
How does this stuff get into the WSJ?
There seems to be an almost irrational reaction from commentators and pundits against Romney. Consider though: Huckabee gone, Palin gone, Bachmann gone, Pawlenty gone, Perry going…..Christie not joining. There is a pattern here. Romney is able to see off political competitors. That ability might help defeat Obama in 2012.
Bloomberg: Gillard is Obama
Posted by – 14 September, 2011
Obama is heading to Australia in November for some golf (President’s Cup). While here he will catch up with JGill. The two have nothing in common, other than their own incompetence. Let’s be clear: Obama like most US Democrats cares nothing for Australia. Obama has the same disdain for Australia as he has for the UK; similar to Bill Clinton. If you have read John Howard’s chapter on East Timor and his dealings with Clinton then you will know what I mean. Clinton had to be cajoled and pressured publicly before he would lend even token US military assistance to the venture.
With that in mind consider the latest offering from Bloomberg: Obama’s Soul Mate Down Under May Be Down.
Gillard inherited a long to-do list because Rudd (2007 to 2010) and John Howard (1996 to 2007) had largely left the economy on autopilot. Most of the heavy lifting was done by past prime ministers like Bob Hawke (1983 to 1991) and Paul Keating (1991 to 1996). Howard and Rudd opted to coast and ride China’s boom. Gillard doesn’t have that luxury as the world economy slides anew…..The only answer for Gillard and Obama is to get radical — be bold, think big and fight for your ideals.
Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of recent Australian political history would understand how utterly absurd the above statement is.
Gillard does not have a single economic reform to her name as PM. Not one. Kevin Rudd only has his retrograde workplace reforms and a bunch of tax increases and massive budget deficits. That is the sum total of the ALP’s economic policies since 2008.
By contrast, Howard paid off nearly $100 billion in ALP Federal debt and left Rudd a $20 billion + surplus. Other highlights include, reforming the waterfront, liberalising workplace laws, cutting income and corporate taxes, abolishing a raft of wholesale and retail taxes in exchange for the GST, managing the Asian Financial Crisis against the IMF and the Clinton administration and establishing a sovereign wealth fund to save the proceeds of the mining boom when it finally hit Budget revenue in 2005-06 (many conservatives don’t like this). The Howard government has become the archetype of affordable and responsible government. Real wages increased nearly 25% during his time in office and unemployment nudged 4%.
UPDATE
The response to the Bloomberg article from readers has been overwhelmingly negative.
I’d also add to the list of Howard economic reforms: making the RBA independent and financial regulation, all of which help Australia avoid a financial crisis during the GFC.