Nate's Thoughts

Politics is Pro Wrestling: Lesson 74

2020-08-13T08:29:00.002-04:00

Many people laugh at me when I say that I follow pro wrestling. “You know it’s fake,” they say. My response is often, “well, you follow politics.”

For readers who don't get the, joke here it is: modern politics is no more real (arguably less so) than pro wrestling. This was no more clearly on display this week when Joe Biden selected Kamala Harris as his running mate.

You may remember during the Democratic primary debates when Kamala Harris attacked Joe Biden’s record on race and implying his support for segregation? That seemed pretty personal. But now they’re best buddies.

In wrestling, that’s what we call kayfabe.

What about when Harris said she believes the women accusing Biden of inappropriate behavior towards them. Is that just water under the bridge?

Of course, that was just part of her shtick, which every pro wrestler…I mean politician…needs.

And what about the criticism throughout the primary about Kamala Harris’s record as a prosecutor?

This record remains inconsistent with today’s movement for criminal justice reform (or the issues being pushed by Black Lives Matter), but the media and Democratic Party seems to have completely forgotten that. Why?

It’s because that criticism as all part of the old storyline, when Kamala Harris was a heel. She’s since had a face turn.

The Democratic Primary was no different than the build up to Wrestlemania—just a little less authentic.

Ranking the Boxers in the Rocky Universe

2018-11-21T17:14:00.001-05:00

In anticipation of Creed II, I thought it appropriate time to evaluate all the major fighters featured in the Rocky Movies (Rocky I-V, Rocky Balboa, and Creed). Here is my definitive ranking:

9. Mason “The Line” Dixon
(Rocky Balboa)

While he had become champion at some point, his struggle to defeat a 61-year old Rocky Balboa (who was coming back from a 20-year retirement) costs him any credibility.

8. Union Cane
(Rocky V)

Critics called him a “paper champion” who got the belt despite having never beat Balboa. They were right, and he quickly surrendered the title to Tommy Gunn.

7. Tommy Gunn

(Rocky V)

Maybe he is a better fighter that his reputation, but his reputation is that of a loser. He had a meteoric rise to the top, and beat Union Cane to become heavyweight champ. But his decision to abandon Rocky Balboa as his trainer spelled the beginning of the end. After his loss to the 41-year old, retired Balboa in a street fight, Gunn was done.

6. "Pretty" Ricky Conlan

(Creed)

Conlan is one of the toughest to rank, given we’ve seen so few of his previous fights or his training. His rise to light heavyweight champion and split decision win over Adonis Johnson (Creed) put him here.

5. Adonis Johnson (Creed)

(Creed)

Notwithstanding his split-decision loss to Conlan, Johnson has the look of a future champ. He deserved to win the fight with Conlan, has the pedigree and skills to get better, and is the youngest fighter on this list. With time (and perhaps with a viewing of Creed II), he may rise in these rankings.

4. Ivan Drago

(Rocky IV)

Drago may be the most overrated boxer in the Rocky universe. He had tremendous punching power, and was incredibly hyped—thanks to the Soviet propaganda machine. But his strength was due in some part to steroid use, and a government sponsored training regimen. His win over Apollo Creed—killing Creed in the ring—was impressive; but Creed was 43 and had been retired from boxing for nearly 9 years by the time of the fight. His also nearly went the distance with Balboa, but was knocked out by the smaller, quicker Rocky (though Balboa was already 40) in the 15^th round.

3. Clubber Lang

(Rocky III)

Clubber Lang was arguably the most impressive fighter in his rise to the top. He won his first 29 fights, all by knockout. Lang was some impressive, that Mickey tells Rocky “you can’t win Rock, this guy will kill you death inside three rounds…this guy is a wrecking machine”. Lang was intense, predicting “pain.” In the first match with Rocky, Mickey and Lang proved right, as Clubber dominated Balboa, knocking him out in round two.

But it’s the rematch that cost Lang a higher ranking on this list. Balboa got a second fight with Lang less than a year later. Balboa used a new strategy, capitalizing on Lang’s intensity and anger, and exposing his lack of stamina. Balboa—never considered a great mental fighter—outsmarted Lang with a “rope-a-dope”-like strategy. Balboa’s third round KO was the end for Lang, who seems to have quit fighting immediately thereafter. Lang may have been the best boxer on paper, but didn’t have the heart of Balboa.

2. Rocky Balboa

(Rocky I-V, Rocky Balboa)

The protagonist of the Rocky movies is the most difficult to rank. He lost a whopping 23 fights (more than all the others on this list combined), many of those to journeymen fighters. He was never considered a great in-ring tactician, nor was he the most impressive athlete. He was never even considered a contender, until getting a random chance at the title against Apollo Creed.

Still, Balboa is considered one of the greatest champions, and has three of the most impressive wins. He shocked the world by going distance with Creed in his first title opportunity. He first won the title from Creed in a rematch a year later, handing Creed his first defeat. He knocked out the previously unbeaten Clubber Lang to earn the belt the second time—a remarkable comeback from their first fight. And he knocked out Ivan Drago and single-handedly ended the Cold War.

What Balboa lacked in physical gifts, he made up in heart, being able to take a beating and keep on going.

1. Apollo Creed
(Rocky I-IV)

There is a reason why Rocky was such an underdog—Apollo Creed was better than him. Creed was 48-0 before losing the title. He beat the younger Balboa in the first fight, and nearly won the rematch, before an improbably 15^th round KO by Balboa. His only other loss—resulting in his death—was at age 43, after an 9-year hiatus from boxing. Notably, Creed also took the third, unofficial fight with Rocky, as admitted by Balboa to Adonis Johnson years later.

Winning two out of three fights from Balboa is good enough to top this list. He was better physically, a better in-ring tactician, and a better showman than Balboa.

Trump Running Behind GOP Senate Candidates in Key States

2016-09-13T20:40:00.003-04:00

The tables below shows polling presidential and US Senate polling in 10 swing states that also have key Senate races.

Create bar charts

In 9 of 10 races, the Republican Senate candidate is running ahead of Trump, by an average of 5.5 points. In five of those states, Trump is losing, while the Republican Senate candidate is ahead. In one other, the Senate race is a virtual tossup, while Trump is losing handily.

What to make of this? I have two conclusions

First: Conservatism is alive and well. Trump’s current poll deficit, should it hold, should not be read as “a crisis for the Republican party”. Nor should it be considered a crisis for the conservative movement. In fact, most of these Republican Senate candidates are more conservative than Trump! Trump’s problems are Trump’s alone.

Second: Conservatives should focus their energies on down ballot races. As the numbers show, there are a number of Senate races that will go down to the wire. I’m not arguing the Presidential race is necessarily decided—a lot can happen between now and Election Day. But I am suggesting that if we want to hold Hillary Clinton in check as President—and I would argue we need to hold Donald Trump in check just as much—these Senate races are critical.

If we want to ensure conservative justices on the Supreme Court, the Senate is where that action will happen. If we want to repeal Obamacare, controlling Congress is essential to that. And if we want conservative policy victories, it is the down-ballot races—Senate, Congress, and state houses—that will be most critical to our success.

Conservatives' Conundrum

2016-08-07T15:15:00.002-04:00

Conservative columnist Ben Shapiro offers a wise caution about the conservative movement endorsing, or turning a blind eye, to decidedly leftist positions and demagogic rhetoric from Donald Trump.

I agree. Conservatives shouldn’t feel the need to defend Trump from every point of criticism or support everything he says no matter how ridiculous or un-conservative. It is our job to call it like we see it and stay true to our principles.

Where I disagree with Shapiro is the idea this is a new expectation with Trump.

Too often, conservatives defended McCain and Romney, even when they offered big government policies or made indefensible gaffes. Conservatives tacitly endorsed the un-conservative policies of George W. Bush—going along with Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, the explosion of earmarks, multiple “stimulus” packages, the bank bailouts and uncontrolled spending increases. And it became heresy—certainly “unpatriotic”—to question his war strategy.

We can’t make the same mistake again.

Building a multi-billion-dollar wall isn’t a conservative priority. Waterboarding—based on the logic that the terrorists behead prisoners, so we must up our violence—isn’t conservative. Massive tariffs that would devastate our economy certainly isn’t conservative.

Now, I’m not writing as a “NeverTrump.” Nor am I “NeverHillary”. Rather, I think this presidential election is silly nonsense.

What I am suggesting, as I’ve have before, is that this election creates an opportunity for true conservatives to talk about what a real conservative-libertarian agenda looks like.

Here is an agenda we should be talking about.

Reduce executive authority. For decades we have allowed the president to accrue more power to act unilaterally and circumvent our constitutional checks and balances. It is time to reject the idea of a superhero president and empower congress.
Restore Federalism. Our constitutional system is based on leaving power in the hands of the states and local governments who are closest to the people. Progressives shifted the balance of power to the federal government. As conservatives, we must push to devolve power back to the states and preserve the 10^th amendment.
Block grant Medicaid and other welfare programs to the states—giving states greater flexibility to develop reforms that work and control costs.
Repeal Obamacare and replace it with Large HSAs and increased competition.
Reduce federal control over education, while states should expand educational choice programs empowering parents with the power to improve their child’s school.
Reform entitlements. Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable. We must overhaul those systems and giver younger workers more control over their own retirement.
End corporate welfare subsidies at all levels of government. Taxpayer-funded handouts undermine economic growth.
Repeal alternative and renewable energy mandates. Politicians should not be picking winners and losers.
Tax reform that makes America more competitive for jobs. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.
Regulatory reform. Why are companies moving jobs overseas? Because our unnecessary regulations drive up the cost of doing business and are “out-forcing” jobs
Restrained foreign policy. We can’t be isolationist, but we should stop trying to be the world’s police force, stop engaging in wars without a plan for victory (or without a Congressional declaration of War), stop sending planes full of money to support foreign regimes, and stop letting fear be used to trample our civil rights.
Cut waste in all parts of government, including the Department of Defense. Yes, there is a lot of unnecessary and reckless spending in the name of “Defense.”
Reduce the corruptive power of public sector unions at all levels of government.

Disagree with anything on my list? Fine—lets debate them, because then we’ll be talking about the issues and not about Trump’s latest insult or Clinton’s latest lie.

We need to focus on the ideas that will make America greater than it already is.

Lessons from the 2016 Primaries for the Conservative Movement

2016-05-22T17:14:00.002-04:00

As a conservative — one with many libertarian leanings, and who puts conservative principles above partisan politics — I’m dissatisfied with the choices I’ll have for president in a few months. I know many other conservative activists who feel the same way. Many of whom are distraught — I am not. In fact, this reinforces my long-held believe that we need to focus on ideas, not electoral politics.

Here four key lessons we should take away from the 2016 election:

1) We must shift our focus away from presidential politics and the cult of personality.

Voters are irrational. Voters, by and large, don’t vote based on careful consideration of all the policy issues of the candidates. Even when they understand and care about the issues, they often don’t vote that way.

Rather, they follow a cult of personality. This is far truer in presidential elections, when celebrity trumps style and style trumps substance.

For example, Trump — a casino magnate who praises Planned Parenthood — won in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. That doesn’t imply Lancaster voters have become pro-gambling or pro-abortion. They remain the most socially conservative county in Pennsylvania.

In Western Pennsylvania, Trump did very well by attacking the “DC establishment” and its cronyism. Yet voters also told Bill Shuster — an 8-term Congressman and son of a Congressman who has been having a relationship with an airline lobbyist while writing legislation favoring the airlines — he deserves another term. Don’t read too much into the meaning of either.

This isn’t just about Trump voters. Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were all iconic personalities. Likewise, Pennsylvania’s last gubernatorial election was only one driven by the personalities of the candidates, not their policies — in which a likable Democrat defeated an unpopular incumbent Republican, even as Republicans picked up legislative seats across the state.

On the flip side, presidential election voters — those who vote only once every four years, don’t know much beyond the presidential candidate’s names, and remain unengaged — don’t influence public policy all that much.

Too often, we have only looked at the presidential election as the definition of success — it is not and shouldn’t be. While we are building an infrastructure, it isn’t to win the next election, but to change public policy.

2) We have an opportunity to separate good policy from electoral politics.

For years, we’ve pretended the Republican party was conservative and that the presidential nominee was the face and voice of the GOP — and therefore conservatism. This meant celebrating President Bush even as he expanded Medicare, increased federal involvement in education, and approved bloated budget after bloated budget. It meant cheering for McCain as he endorsed restrictions of free speech, “Cap & Trade” legislation, and bank bailouts and federal stimulus ideas. And it meant defending Romney as he called 47% of Americans moochers.

Should Donald Trump be the nominee, this needn’t be a problem. Trump isn’t a conservative, and doesn’t articulate conservative policy positions or ideas. Conservative intellectuals have already disavowed Trump, and can continue to do so.

This provides a strong opportunity for conservatives to focus on conservative ideas and policies, divorced from the policies and rhetoric of the GOP nominee. We’ll be stronger as a movement for doing so.

3) We need to reestablish conservative principles and the conservative movement.

To be clear, it’s not merely that we have the opportunity to refocus on conservative principles, it is that we must. Being opposed to Obama or Hillary, or “Washington insiders” or “the establishment” isn’t enough — at least in the long term — to be successful in saving America.

On this, I strongly agree with Matt Lewis in his book Too Dumb to Fail that we — the conservative movement — have gone too far in dumbing down our ideas, making things too personal, and focusing on the next election rather than winning the war of ideas. We now have an opportunity to get back to those roots and focus our efforts on selling the idea that free market policies benefit all Americans.

4) We must recognize the importance of effective communication.

In one aspect though, we need to be more like Trump: in his ability to reach voters. Trump connects with voters who aren’t traditional Republican primary voters. Many of these are folks who have been frustrated with politicians and angry simply at the direction things are going.

To be sure, they are voters tougher for other candidates, Trump critics, and conservative leaders to reach. They aren’t the usually targeted “Super Voters.” They do not sit around watching every debate; they don’t read National Review or even the Wall Street Journal.

Trump does a good job talking to new voters. It’s been pointed out elsewhere Trump speaks at a 4th grade level, and speaks in a way to emphasize his points. These are great communication tools for reaching “regular people.”

If the conservative movement is going to win the war of ideas, we must become more effective communicators to regular voters.

Cross-posted on Medium

Has the Conservative Movement become "Too Dumb"?

2016-05-01T16:08:00.000-04:00

I recently read (rather listened to) Matt Lewis's new book, Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections (and How It Can Reclaim Its Conservative Roots). As Matt take coincides with a lot of my recent thinking, I wanted to share some notes and ideas.

Too Dumb to Fail takes a look at the rise and decline of the Republican party and that of the conservative movement. His main point is that conservatives no longer provide fundamental intellectual policy discussion, and have dumbed down their message (or allowed it to be dumbed down) into talking points, personal and partisan attacks, demagoguery, and nativism. This may help win the next election, but sacrificing the long-term battle of ideas.

Here are some key points that resonated with me:

Large segments of the conservative movement have become anti-intellectual; overly emotional and irrational; less thoughtful; reliant on talking points; dependent on anger and resentment; divisive, mean-spirited, and personal rather than principled.
Political professionals and bad actors have hurt the conservative movement. The former have no accountability and profit even when Republicans lose elections. The latter includes charlatans who use the conservative movement for their own aggrandizement or enrichment. We need to call out bad actors.
Winning elections dominates the conservative movement’s energy. This has come at the sacrifice of trying to win the policy debate, win the philosophical argument, and win the culture. The electoral incentives reward dumbing down our politics and “acting dumb”—sacrificing long-term gains for short-term results.
Many critics of “the establishment” are themselves establishment actors who profit from politics.
The populism of helping the “little man” take on big government; fighting against those who get rich from government; ending cronyism, earmarks, and corporate welfare has taken a back seat to the populism of demagoguery, xenophobia, nativism, protectionism, blame, bitterness, and partisan scare tactics.

Let me add areas where I quibble with Matt:

First, he over-emphasizes the importance of presidential elections as the sign the GOP and conservatives are losing. This ignores victories in Congress, and certainly overlooks both electoral and policy victories in the states.
Lewis’s concerns about today’s populism, which I share, extends too far and seems unwelcoming to new people in the movement. I don’t agree with his prescription (or his examples) of “paying your dues.” Likewise, he pays too much respect to certain “old guard” conservative entities—I would specifically mention Phyllis Schlafly/Eagle Forum and CPAC, which I find to be part of the problem.
In this vein, he often goes to the example of “shutting down the federal government” in the effort to defund Obamacare—and criticizing Ted Cruz and Heritage Action in the process—as a prime example of the problem in the GOP. Yet this is hardly the most egregious case study: Its impact was little felt (and quickly forgotten) outside the Beltway, and had little electoral significance.
Finally, he focuses primarily on “conservative” and “traditional” political principles, rather than libertarian and classical liberal thinkers, though the latter would largely agree with the problems he identifies. This isn’t a shortcoming, but merely a fact that rebuilding the “conservative movement” must include the traditional wing and the more libertarian wing of conservative intellectuals.

Lewis’s take looks particularly prescient in the wake of a presidential election long on rhetoric and drumming up fears of voters, and short on policy discussion. His prescription is easier said than done, but he’s right on that the conservative movement must return to intellectual roots to engage in the war of ideas, and avoid dumbing down our policies.

Breaking Down Pennsylvania's Voter Registration Data

2016-03-11T19:52:00.002-05:00

A number of news stories have focused on the fact that "46,000" (it's actually more than 49,000, as of March 7) Pennsylvania Democrats switched their voter registration to Republican, and speculated that's a "Trump effect."

Now 49,000 switches is a huge number, larger than past years, and that may be the “Trump effect”—though if it is, that runs against the narrative of “racist Republicans” supporting Trump, when it's Democrats who like Trump’s big government, xenophobic policies.

But it may also be the “Wolf effect,” or the “Obama effect,” or simply presidential election enthusiasm. It could also be folks switching to oppose Trump.

Most likely (this is my hypothesis), it’s the fact this will likely be the first time in decades Pennsylvania’s primary will help determine the GOP nominee.

But the fact is this number doesn't represent some mass movement or a resurgence of the Republican party in Pennsylvania.

1) Conversions from Republican to Democrat are also up. More than 25,000 Republicans and almost 32,000 "other" switch their registration to Democrat.

The 25,000 Republicans who switched in the first 3 months are also higher than the total in 2013, 2014, or 2015. Moreover, Republicans usually have an advantage in party shifts, though Democrats have outpaced Republicans in getting independent voters to switch their party registration.

Party to Party Changes
	R to D	Other to D	D to R	Other to R	Net R Gain
2008 to 2012	78,224	55,216	125,215	47,054	38,829
2013	16,921	7,028	12,454	8,632	-2,863
2014	16,559	11,655	19,903	8,225	-86
2015	17,864	18,797	29,792	15,884	9,015
2016	25,390	31,678	49,856	24,972	17,760
Total	154,958	124,374	237,220	104,767	62,655

2) This doesn’t approach the wave of 2008. In the year before the 2008 primary (with the Obama wave and the close Obama-Clinton primary race), Democrats gained 328,000 registered voters, while Republicans lost 73,000—a net swing of 401,000.

Over the past 10 months, Republicans have gained ground on Democrats, but only by 34,000 on Democrats.

Total Registered Voters in Pennsylvania
	Dems	GOP	Dem Advantage
May 2007	3,872,018	3,259,243	612,775
2008 Primary	4,200,109	3,186,057	1,014,052
Change	328,091	-73,186	401,277

May 2015	3,963,864	2,964,437	999,427
March 2016	3,996,333	3,031,114	965,219
Change	32,469	66,677	-34,208

3) Democrats continue to lead in new party registration. Democrats have had 6,000 more newly registered voters than Republicans, an have out-gained Republicans in new registration every year. While the first three months of 2016 are an exception, new voter registrations matters more than party-to-party shifts. Since 2008, Republicans are a +63,000 in party shifts, but Democrats are a +219,000 in new voter registration.

New Voter Registration
	D	R	Other	Net D-R
2008-09	84,527	53,786	47,018	30,741
2010	77,165	59,852	50,108	17,313
2011	77,562	60,605	45,858	16,957
2012	211,025	123,478	118,408	87,547
2013	69,808	46,842	47,951	22,966
2014	75,349	56,411	56,604	18,938
2015	89,310	70,487	53,082	18,823
2016	34,967	28,908	15,090	6,059
Total	719,713	500,369	434,119	219,344

What to do about Trump?

2016-02-28T10:35:00.002-05:00

On Friday, I outlined 8 reasons why conservatives should oppose Donald Trump, while yesterday's post looked at 5 theories why, despite all that baggage, Trump's message resonates with a large segment of voters.

Now the final piece of the puzzle: What to take from this, and what to do about it.

I believe that beating Trump requires Trump’s challengers and critics to learn from Trump and mimic some of what he does. No, not his policies, nor his demagoguery, nor his boorishness. But his ability to communicate to "regular voters,"certainly.

1) Communicate with regular people in mind. Don’t target just “Republican supervoters” or National Review readers. Stop talking like policy wonks and in sound bites. Speak plainly and from the heart.

2) Make news; stir the pot. Attract attention. Don’t be afraid to say things that will be controversial, if it’s what you believe. Recognize that bad press coverage can be good for you, no press coverage is always bad. Throw the traditional playbook of campaign consultants out the window.

(As an aside: there's a number of signs that is starting to happen now).

3) Be genuine. People voter for the person, not the policies, not the suit, not the consulted-designed robot. Let them see more of what you're really like.

4) Spend a boatload of money. This includes messages to break through the Trump-dominated media, and to tell regular people about Trump. I couldn’t believe when I read that only 4 percent of SuperPAC spending had been used to attack Trump. Duh, no wonder he’s winning.

Thankfully, this too appears to be changing.

Why Trump's Message Gets Through

2016-02-27T11:30:00.000-05:00

By DonkeyHotey - Donald Trump - Caricature, CC BY 2.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46701860

Yesterday, I pointed out 8 reasons conservatives shouldn't support Donald Trump. Okay, but that’s all been said before, by myriad conservatives, pundits, political leaders, reporters, and Facebook users. So why isn’t that message getting through?

Today, I've got five reasons why Trump’s message is winning

1) Trump is running an anti-establishment, anti-mainstream media campaign. This makes sense for any candidate. The “establishment” (i.e., Congress, the federal government, politicians, lobbyists and political consultants) are always unpopular; maybe more now than ever. Public trust in the media is at an all-time low.

Trump campaigning as a change agent to these institutions—like Obama did—works with voters.

It also works to deflect criticism. When anyone in the media criticizes Trump, it helps him. “Of course the liberal media hates me,” he can say, and Trump voters will love it. Likewise, any criticism of Trump about his policy views or demagoguery can be met with “Oh, see the establishment is just attacking me because they are scared,” and his supporters eat that up.

Simply put, criticism by the media or anyone vaguely resembling “the establishment” won’t derail Trump.

2) Trump is the biggest personality. Trump has adopted pro-wresting tactics, realizing (as I pointed out years ago) that the best wrestler doesn’t win, but the most popular entertainer does. Same goes in politics—we don’t elect the person with the best expertise in tax policy, we elect the coolest politician.

Trump has escalated that to new heights. Trump supporters don’t care that he’s not a conservative, because they aren’t (for the most part) voting for him on the issues—they are voting for his big personality.

Trump has adopted another wrestling tactic—the heel. Trump has dominated media coverage (at some point getting 60-70% of all air time), recognizing that as long as he’s in the news, it’s good. A wrestling heel understands that hearing “boos” is a great accomplishment—what they don’t want to hear is silence. Trump recognizes that the same is true—to an extent—in politics. As long as they are talking about you—positively or negatively—it’s good for your campaign; just don’t let them ignore you.

When Trump makes controversial statements, it makes news; and he makes a lot of controversial statements and makes a lot of news. Thus Trump dominates the spotlight, dominates in name ID, and makes it tough for anyone else to get their message across.

3) Trump does appeal to voters who think immigration is the most important issue. This is a small percentage, but man are they passionate. In South Carolina exit polling, more Republicans agree that illegal immigrants should be offered legal status, and only 10% said immigration was their top issue (which is even lower in general polling). However, those voters overwhelming favor Trump.

And let’s be honest, there are bigots and xenophobes and racists voting for Trump. I’m not saying most Trump voters are racist, but Trump does attract a disproportionate number of racists. Those voters (though a small percentage of the whole), aren’t going to be shaken by my criticisms of Trump.

4) Here’s the interesting part: Trump attracts new voters. That is, he appeals to voters who aren’t traditional Republican primary voters. Many of these are folks who have been frustrated with politicians and angry simply at the direction things are going. These are folks who may not care so much about Trump’s policies at all.

And they are voters tougher for other candidates, or Trump critics, to reach. They aren't the usually targeted "Super Voters." They don't sit around watching every debate, They don't read National Review.

Trump actually does a good job talking to new voters. It’s been pointed out elsewhere Trump speaks at a 4th grade level, and speaks in a way to emphasize his points. These are great communication tools for reaching "regular people."

5) Finally, Trump’s opponents sound like politicians. Look, Ted Cruz doesn't have a lot of friends in the DC establishment, and is considered a rock-solid conservative. But he is a US Senator, and he looks and talks like a polished politician. Marco Rubio was elected to the Senate beating the establishment as a conservative challenger, and for the most part has remained a stalwart conservative. But he looks and talks like a polished politician. And honestly, four years ago, conservatives talked about their hope that Chris Christie or Jeb Bush would jump into the race as more conservative folks who could derail the uber-establishment Mitt Romney.

While I’ve noted Trump isn’t actually honest, he is blunt, he is open with his comments, he says what he thinks at the time he thinks it—and comes across as someone who “tells it like it is”. His opponents, like most politicians, try to be tactful (usually a good, but when taken to an extreme, looks like political correctness), discreet, and guarded. And even if they avoid looking dishonest, they come across as fake, rehearsed, and not genuine.

Tomorrow, I'll wrap up this series on "what can be done about it."

Eight Reasons Conservatives Should Reject Donald Trump

2016-02-26T22:07:00.000-05:00

As I pointed out on Facebook, I long believed there was no chance Donald Trump would be the Republican presidential nominee, and stayed relatively quiet on the matter. As of today, I still don’t think that a Trump nomination is “inevitable”, but I now accept there’s a reasonable chance of that happening.

While my voice isn’t a new one, I felt compelled to go on record with my own thoughts. Here are just a few reasons why conservatives should reject Donald Trump:

He’s not conservative. He supports abortion on demand and Planned Parenthood, raising taxes, single payer health care, eminent domain for private gain, and gun control. On policy, Trump is a better fit with the Democratic Party—this is why he was a Clinton and Ed Rendell support for so long—than the Republican.
He’s a demagogue. Trump is a loud mouth, xenophobic, sexist bigot (or at least, he plays that character on the campaign trail).
He will roll over the constitution. For those concerned about the expansion of executive power, Trump will be worse than Obama or Bush ever were. He’s the closest thing to a fascist we’ve seen in America in decades.
Trump IS part of the establishment. His campaign donations, his connections with politicians like the Clintons, the favors he’s gotten from government—enriching himself through the vast power of government—are all things voters hate about the political establishment. Trump should be the poster child for cronyism.
Trump can’t win a general election. His favorability ratings are horrible among general election voters, and he loses head-to-head matchups (even when other Republican contenders win).
He’s not honest. He doesn’t “tell it like it is”, but lies about himself, his own record, other candidates, and debunked Internet myths.
Trump will damage the Republican brand, and more importantly to me, the message of conservatives. The attacks that Republicans/conservative are all bigots, racists, and Neanderthals will pour down on us. The damage to the brand be worse than that done by Bush.
Voting for Trump won’t “show the establishment”. Consultants are still going to get paid. Party hacks aren’t going to get fired. And if you think “well, now the party is going to listen to my voice,” think again.

Tomorrow, I’ll offer some ideas as to why—despite all that—Trump is doing so well among voters.

My Obamacare Story: I Can't Keep My Plan Either

2013-11-03T19:53:00.001-05:00

A few weeks ago, I, like hundreds of thousands others, received notice that I couldn't keep my health insurance plan. Highmark is cancelling my plan at the end of 2014 - so at least I have a year to figure out what to do.

On top of that, the letter told me my premium will go up on December 1. I had to call to find out that increase would be 10%. That's after a 39% increase since 2011.

But its going to get a lot worse for me. After weeks of trying to log onto the Obamacare exchange website, I finally did get into the site, and jumped through all the hoops allowing me to browse plans.

Turns out, the least expensive "bronze" plan that is HSA eligible (as I'd like to keep using my HSA) represents an 82% increase over what I'm paying now. In total my premiums will have increased by a whopping 152% since 2011.

You would think that I'd get better coverage for skyrocketing premiums, but in fact, I'm going to have higher higher co-pays with the Obamacare plan.

It gets even worse. If I participate in the exchange, I'll have to pay taxes on those insurance premiums. Turns out, Obamacare prohibits using pre-tax funds from cafeteria plans on the exchange. Since my employer doesn't have its own insurance plan, we use a cafeteria plan, deducting funds from my paycheck ever two weeks to pay for insurance.

Now I can't do that, and my insurance premiums will be taxable income That means I'll be paying 215% more for inferior health coverage than 2011.

Except I won't. Obamacare is designed to hit young, healthy people like me with higher premiums. But even with the individual mandate/tax, it's a bad deal. I haven't decided yet whether to go without insurance (since I rarely visit a doctor, and Obamacare allows me to wait until I get sick to sign up and get the same price) or enroll in Samaritan Ministries - but I'm going to opt out.

David and Goliath Revisited

2013-04-14T21:37:00.003-04:00

I've been pondering the story and lessons of David and Goliath recently. Mostly commonly, people take from David vs. Goliath the lesson that we can accomplish anything--slaying the "giant" in our own lives--if we have faith in God. Often, this leads to disappointment when we don't reach our goals and don't get what we want in our lives or careers. But there is more to the story of David and Goliath.

David was tall.

Contrary to perception, David wasn't a small child when he faced Goliath.

Kish had a son named Saul, as handsome a young man as could be found anywhere in Israel, and he was a head taller than anyone else. - 1 Samuel 9:2

Then Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head. David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them. "I cannot go in these," he said to Saul, "because I am not used to them." 1 Samuel 17:38-39

The tallest man in Israel wouldn't put his armor on a little boy. And David didn't say "this armor is huge on me", but that he wasn't accustomed to fighting in armor. David was, at the least, physically ready to go to battle.

David had done battle before.

Not only was David physically prepared to go to battle Goliath, he had some experience that would come in handy as a shepherd--including fighting lions and bears.

But David said to Saul, "Your servant has been keeping his father's sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it. Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, because he has defied the armies of the living God - 1 Samuel 17:34-36

David went on to become a great warrior.
David was young and inexperienced when he slew Goliath, he would go on to prove himself to get a great soldier and leader on the battlefield. The Bible describes many battles David would successfully lead after slaying Goliath.

Whatever mission Saul sent him on, David was so successful that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the troops, and Saul's officers as well..."Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands." - 1 Samuel 17:5, 7

David ran to the battle, hit Goliath with a rock, then cut off his head.
God could have had Goliath slip on a banana peel, that would have made it easier for David. But he didn't, David actually slew Goliath in a real battle.

As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground. So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him. David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the sheath. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword. - 1 Samuel 17:48-51

The story of David and Goliath is meant to give all of us hope--God will be on our side, and with Him, we can conquer any challenge. We each face our own Goliath in our lives, and we should have the confidence David had that God will help us slay our Goliath.

But too often we expect God to do things for us without any action on our part. God didn't slay Goliath for David, but was with David when he acted. David ran to fight Goliath.

When you face Goliath in your life, and pray to God for help, we should ask ourselves these questions:

Am I prepared to fight Goliath? David was. He wasn't just a small boy thinking he could kill a giant. He had already fought bears and lions. Goliath would be a great challenge, but David knew that with God on his side he could prevail, and had prepared himself for that battle.

Have I actually prepared myself to deal with the challenges in my life? Have I rehearsed and practiced? Have I trained? Do I have the experience I need? Have I asked others to help? Simply asking God to take care of your problems isn't enough. God will help you when you ask, and with God you can do things you could never do alone, but God won't do for you what you can do for yourself.

Am I capable of handling the challenge of Goliath? David was on his way to becoming a great warrior when he faced Goliath. Facing Goliath was a great trial for any man--one all the other Israelite soldiers were too terrified to face--but David was someone ready to become a giant-slayer. Sometimes God doesn't give us what we ask for, because we aren't ready for those challenges. Maybe you want to get a big promotion, or fall in love and get married, or start your own business. But are you truly ready? Because God won't give us more than we can handle.

Am I willing to run to face Goliath?

God will be with us as we face the Goliaths in our lives, but we have to be ready to fight those battles. It won't always be easy, or pretty, or convenient. Praying for God's help doesn't mean he will slay Goliath for us, but should give us the confidence to face Goliath with God on our side.

How Romney, Smith can win Pennsylvania

2012-11-05T21:46:00.000-05:00

While losing the election in 2004, John Kerry won Pennsylvania by 140,000. In 2008, Obama carried the Keystone state by a wide margin of 600,000 votes. But in 2010, Republicans won the top races, with Pat Toomey going to the Senate and Tom Corbett winning the Governor's office. If Mitt Romney and Tom Smith are to win Pennsylvania this time round, they'll need to follow the Toomey path to victory.

Here's what to watch for:

Philadelphia: Barack Obama carried Philadelphia by 480,000 votes in 2008. This was a big gain from 2004; Kerry's margin was 410,000 votes. Toomey lost Philadelphia by 290,000. (Toomey's percentage in Philadelphia was lower than either Bush's or McCain's, but turnout was much lower).

Obama likely won't get that margin this time round, but should still top Kerry's numbers from '04. Anything better than +430,000 is good news for Obama. Less than +400,000 gives Romney a great chance.

Watch the undervote here too. In 2004, there were 40,000 fewer votes cast in Philadelphia for U.S. Senate than for President. In 2008, there was a 68,000 vote dropoff from President to Attorney General. A big undervote could help Tom Smith in the U.S. Senate race.

Suburban Philadelphia: Kerry won the suburban counties (Berks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery) by 90,000. Obama ran up a whopping 205,000 vote margin in these counties. But Pat Toomey narrowed the gap to 23,000 votes in 2010. If Romney can hold his own here - keeping the race close, he'll have a good shot to win.

The suburban counties are not monolithic - Delaware Co. has been pretty strong for Democrats at the state and national level, while Chester remains a better bet for Republican - but the shift in voting patterns will be similar for all four. Watch Bucks in particular to get a sense of how this trend is shaping up: Obama won Bucks by 29,000, but two years later, Toomey took the county by 14,000 (each winning about 53% of the vote).

Allegheny County: Allegheny County includes the Democratic stronghold of Pittsburgh, but also more conservative suburbs. Kerry won Allegheny by 100,000, and despite doing much better statewide, Obama didn't expand the margin out west. Toomey lost Allegheny by 40,000 in 2010.

If Romney and Tom Smith (a native of nearby Armstrong County) hold their own in Allegheny County, it should also signify they do very well throughout Western Pennsylvania--a region Republicans have made gains the last few elections with blue-collar, conservative voters.

Rest of State: The rest of Pennsylvania isn't quite what James Carville dubbed "Alabama in the middle", as it include smaller Democratic bases like Scranton, Erie, and Harrisburg. But the "T" is much more conservative. McCain won the "rest of state" by 185,000, while Bush won by a net 460,000 in 2004. Toomey netted a 433,000 vote margin in the "rest of state" in winning in 2010.

Romney and Smith should both do very well in the other 61 Pennsylvania counties. How well remains to be seen. Keep an eye on Lancaster County, typically a Republican stronghold. Bush carried Lancaster by 71,000 in 2004, Obama closed to within 27,000 in Lancaster four years later. Toomey won Lancaster by 55,000 in 2010, with a higher percentage but lower turnout than Bush in 2004.

If Romney gets both high turnout and Toomey-like percentages in rural counties like Lancaster, he could overcome Obama's Philadelphia margin.

Why I am not a "libertarian"

2012-08-25T17:25:00.000-04:00

Here are two examples of libertarian articles that help illustrate why I consider myself a “classical liberal” and have many problems with the self-identified libertarian movement.

In one article that many of my libertarian Facebook friends have shared, If Only Conservatives Were More Like Libertarians, the author attacks social conservatives with rhetoric like:

How is it that same government can be the ultimate authority on how we live our lives, whom we can marry, how we raise our children, where we worship, what we inhale and ingest, and what we do behind closed doors?

Later she repeats the charge:

Typically, conservatives line up in support of family values (what if the family is dysfunctional?), a strong military and national defense, the right to bear arms, the death penalty and school prayer. They oppose embryonic stem-cell research, abortion, divorce, gay marriage, gay adoption and euthanasia. It’s the conservative version of a cradle-to-grave model, all spelled out in great detail.

These are both over-the-top passages. I know many social conservatives that advocate for strong military, against legalized abortion, and for family values. But I’ve yet to meet anyone who thinks the “government is the ultimate authority” or supports laws dictate where we worship or how we raise our children. I don’t think that by-and-large conservatives “oppose divorce”—unless “oppose” means they think it is bad to get divorced, rather than they want to make it illegal. The conservative agenda was to oppose federal funding of new lines of embryonic stem-cell research—something every libertarian would agree with. And yes, conservatives generally oppose giving government marriage licenses to same sex couples—but I’m not convinced that government licensing of same-sex marriage is a libertarian solution.

Clearly, this is a criticism of a straw-man conservative, not a real-life, intelligent social conservative who can articulate why strong families lead to smaller government.

The second piece which raised my ire was even more mean-spirited in discussing the shooting at the Family Research Council:

The Family Research Council will no doubt appreciate how some guy with a gun and bag full of Chick-fil-A sandwiches will feed its narrative they are the actual victims of oppression, not the gays.

Not only does it imply horribly that conservatives are happy that a security guard got shot, but that their end game is oppression of gays.

If these were just two ill-conceived essays, that would be one thing. But from my observations, happens far too often amongst many “libertarians”. They use over-the-top demagoguery, seek to claim a “holier-than-though” moral position, and go out of their way to alienate potential allies. Libertarians—including friends of mine at the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine—need to spend more time understanding conservatives,and finding ways for working with them on areas of common ground in the spirit of fusionism.

For a good discussion of the role of libertarians in the conservative movement and fusionsim, check out the first half of this Reason piece - a discussion between Matt Welch and Jonah Goldberg.

Rick Santorum's Phony Fiscal Frugality

2012-01-15T14:34:00.001-05:00

Rick Santorum attempts to defend his legacy as an avid earmarker by attacking John McCain, claiming he manufactured the earmark issue to hide his own big government tendencies:

“The reason John McCain created the earmark controversy is because he needed to say he was tough on spending. The problem is that when it came to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps — he never wanted to cut anything. Those are the big issues. That’s where the money was. It’s not in appropriated accounts. … Sixty percent of the spending in Washington is entitlement spending. … That’s the spending that’s going up.”

The problem with attacking McCain over not wanting to reduce Social Security or Medicare spending is this: In 2003, there was a vote to expand Medicare liabilities by several trillion dollars, i.e., Medicare Part D. Rick Santorum voted for this massive increase in entitlements (McCain, by contrast, did not).

Oh, and by the way, while earmarks may only be a small part of the federal budget, they are used to grease the skids for other big government programs. Medicare Part D is a key example - earmarks were used to help buy Republican votes for that.

A lot of Republican voters are looking for a "conservative alternative to Romney" - and one is needed. Problem is, Santorum is not that guy; neither is Newt Gingrich.

I've noted for a while I think Obama is more likely than not to win another term. Even if that proves wrong, we are not going to have a president who embodies fiscally conservative principles. Bottom line is this: Conservative activists need to focus on electing a conservative Congress, and then holding them accountable.

Does Newt Gingrich Believe in Limited Government?

2011-12-18T17:28:00.001-05:00

I'll admit I haven't been watching the presidential campaign very closely, having skipped all but a few minutes of the so-called debates and mostly skimming news articles. But it feels like I woke up from a long Rip van Winkle nap and heard Newt Gingrich was leading in the polls. What the heck?

I've already skewered Mitt Romney on these pages during his prior run, for flip-flopping and for stealing the Aqua-Fresh logo, and blasted Rick Santorum for his big government policies and for then claiming he would have been fiscally conservative if the Tea Party had his back. So now let me turn my ire to Newt Gingrich:

Gingrich has long supported an individual mandate to buy health insurance. He is trying to distance himself from his prior stance now, the only problem with that is he kept endorsing an individual mandate over and over again. Indeed, President Obama has defended Obamacare recently by noting both Gingrich and Romney endorsed an individual mandate. The individual mandate is such an extreme and irrational policy that even candidate Obama opposed it. Gingrich also supported another key component of Obamacare: government-run or subsidized electronic medical records.

Gingrich endorses taxpayer subsidies for ethanol, which makes no policy sense as ethanol is both inefficient and results in greater carbon emissions, but makes political sense when you consider big campaign donations and Gingrich's background as a well-paid ethanol lobbyist.

Gingrich today says it was a "mistake" to do an ad with Nancy Pelosi about "climate change" (though I'm guess he got paid for that too). But he also has supported carbon cap & trade, a big government scheme dreamed up by Goldman Sachs and Enron.

You have his lobbying for Freddie Mac a quasi-government body that contributed mightily to the financial collapse then got billions in taxpayer bailouts. His ties to the causes of the problem help explain why he decided to endorse the Wall Street Bailouts and TARP.

Gingrich famously attacked the Paul Ryan plan to reform Medicare, calling it "right-wing social engineering" (though maybe that was really a compliment, Gingrich seems to appreciate right-wing social engineering). Less famously, he lobbied for Medicare Part D, a multi-trillion expansion of taxpayers' entitlement liabilities.

On everything from earmarks to pandering to union bosses that underwrite Occupy Wall Street to pushing for a national ID card, Gingrich has chosen big government, or at least political expedience, over free enterprise.

In my review of his book, I noted Gingrich is generally committed to "efficient" government and bringing new technology into government, rather than a commitment to limited government. I found nothing in his record to make me change my mind.

As I mentioned in a Twitter conversation, I understand that there is not "perfect candidate," but there's a difference between having a "purity" test and demanding a candidate who will expand liberty, not government. Newt Gingrich is not that candidate.

Just Call it a "Social Security Scheme"

2011-09-14T22:56:00.000-04:00

There's been a lot of debate over whether Social Security is a "Ponzi Scheme". I propose we stop calling it a Ponzi Scheme - as the term is a bit dated, since Ponzi pleaded guilty to fraud in 1920 - and call such schemes "Socially Security Schemes" For example: Bernie Madoff ripped off investors through a Social Security Scheme.

The elements are effectively the same. Social Security and Ponzi schemes take your money and promise some return on it at a later date. But rather than investing your money, both schemes rely on people joining into the pyramid in the future. Most Ponzi schemes collapse by failing to continue to attract new investors. Social Security has avoided that fatal flaw by forcing every generation of workers to pay into the system.

Of course, as the number of recipients increased faster than the number of payers, Social Security has continued to become a worse deal. As Michael Tanner points out, we are paying more and getting less:

The very first Social Security recipient, Ida Mae Fuller of Vermont, paid just $44 in Social Security taxes, but the long-lived Mrs. Fuller collected $20,993 in benefits. Such high returns were possible because there were many workers paying into the system and only a few retirees taking benefits out of it. ...

Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase.

Andrew Biggs elaborates on this, noting that - like a Ponzi scheme - those than joined the Security Security Scheme early get a much better payout than those joining late:

A person who retired in 1950 received around a 20 percent annual return on the taxes he paid (which happens to be exactly the same return that Madoff promised to his investors). Put another way, that person received around 12 times more in benefits than he’d paid in taxes. That helps explain why Social Security became so popular: it was simply an incredibly good deal.

If you were born in 1950 and heard your grandparents say how much they liked Social Security, you’d be tempted to think you’ll get the same sort of deal. But you won’t: an average wage earner born in 1950 will receive around a 2.2 percent return from the system, which is less than what you could earn on guaranteed government bonds. A person entering the workforce today will receive only around a 1.7 percent return.

Yikes, could I please get my money back?

Wake me when Google + is ready for prime time

2011-07-12T20:09:00.000-04:00

I don't normally blog on technology, but since I've gotten a chance to try out Google +, and others have not, and I have a few friends who swear Google + is the awesome, I thought I'd offer some perspective.

For starters, Google + is very derivative. It intended to be just like Facebook, geared for folks who prefer the Google brand, with virtually all the same basic features under different names. I'm generally dismissive of things that rip off the invention of others--though many products (examples: cars, computers, cell phones) have been improved by second generation imitators. However, I see no improvement whatsoever in Google + over Facebook. Let me break down a few reasons why.

The "Network" for Social Networking: I use Facebook primarily to share articles (often on politics) with my friends and other connections to spread the word. This includes my 700 Facebook "friends" and 3,000 plus folks who "like" my employer. Spreading my wisdom will be a bit slower with the 16 folks who included me in their "circle" on Google +.

I also like to interact with real life friends on Facebook, and see what they are up to. A large number of my friends are on Facebook. In fact, I have more Facebook friend requests that I need to accept or reject than total contacts on Google.
Ease of Sharing: Google + has a "+1" button, mimicking Facebook's "like" button. As mentioned above, I tend to share articles. On this topic, there is a good PC World Infographic comparing features in Google + and Facebook, a Wall Street Journal article on how Google made Facebook respond to Google +, and a PennLive blog post on how to use Google +. All of them have a prominent Facebook Like/Recommend/Share button. None of these articles on Google + has a Google share option.
RSS Feeds: I blog quite a bit. I like to share my blogs in a variety of areas, including Facebook and Twitter. Using RSS, I can post automatically to both my Facebook page and Twitter Account. In fact, shortly after I click "post" on this particularly blog entry, it will appear on both. It will not appear on my Google + account, as no such functionality exists yet.
Games: Other than sharing articles, I also play games on Facebook, especially Jeopardy. I play Jeopardy a lot. But I can't play Jeopardy on Google +.

Google Wave: One of my friends most insistent on getting everyone to "switch over" to Google + was also insistent I need to use Google Wave for everything. Shortly after I got on Google Wave, it was buried next to Jimmy Hoffa. I'm skeptical that Google + will stand the test of time.
Google's Big Government rent-seeking: Google has poured millions of dollars into politics, supporting mostly liberal candidates (including heavy support for President Obama). They lobby for internet regulation (that would benefit Google) in the form of "net neutrality" (with exemptions for applications, i.e., for Google) and to get tens of millions in government contracts. (Note there was a Blogspot blog I found just yesterday on Google's rent-seeking that is now gone, which I find curious, as Google owns Blogspot).

Granted, many companies engage in lobbying for their own benefit, and Facebook is no bastion of libertarianism. And it makes no sense to avoid a good product because of the politics of the company or its employees--I use many Google products already. But Google + is not a good product, and it seems the only benefit of Google + is the Google brand: a brand I have no love for.

Now a defender of Google would tell you that Google + is only in "Field Testing" stage, and much of my critique could be moot once Google adds features and reaches critical mass. But as of now, Google + is underwhelming, and contrary to some of my real-world friends, I will not encourage others (real-world or cyber contacts) to switch over.

How Wrestling is Like Politics

2011-04-03T12:17:00.000-04:00

In celebration of Wrestlemania, and to defend myself against those who mock my appreciation of pro wrestling, I feel the need to point out how wrestling is like politics:

While some criticize pro wrestling because it is "fake", so too are political events. A wrestling match or show is staged, pre-planned, and well rehearsed, but anyone who has seen a political rally or even town hall meeting, must realize that those too are well choreographed.
Wrestlers play to the crowd, trying to whip them up into a fervor. So too do politicians. (Although, in this case, politicians all pander to the crowd, whereas many wrestlers are "heels", and try to insult and offend the crowds to get the energy going).
Both wrestling and politics involve a lot of talking, mostly about how awesome the speaker is, and how evil their opponent is.
Regardless of merit, popular personalities tend to win. The best pure wrestlers will often lose to those who are more dynamic speakers - the same happens in politics.
It is usually pretty easy to predict what wrestlers and politicians will say, do, and who will win.
No one ever wants to retire (see: Rick Flair, Arlen Specter).
Cheating is common, but rarely results in disqualification.

In some ways, however, wrestling is superior:

Cool entrance music. Could you imagine a legislative hearing wrapping up, and all of a sudden, my personal theme song blasts on the sound system? I walk in with the announcer yelling "What's he doing here," and grab the microphone and give my testimony. We'd get a lot more viewers on CSPAN or PCN that way.
After the debate, they fight. They closest thing we get to that in politics is debates like Santorum and Casey in 2006. You can't tell me that wouldn't have been better if it had ended with Santorum attacking Casey, with the late Tim Russert screaming, "A steel chair! Don't do it, Rick! No not like this, not like this!!!"

Mitt Romney: Ultra Phony

2011-03-06T22:32:00.002-05:00

There's a lot of news coming out on the 2012 presidential election races, so you know what that means: Time to make fun of Mitt Romney.

First, there was the news that the paperback edition of his book not only represents a reduction in price, but also significant changes in sections that didn’t resonate too well with Republican voters. That is, he had the opportunity to change his lukewarm support for the stimulus and inability to identify differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare (which was the model for ObamaCare). Now, those are both “failures”:

The first rewrite excises a relatively even-handed assessment of the 2009 economic-stimulus package. In the original, Romney wrote that it "will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery, but not as much as it could have." The paperback pronounces the stimulus "a failure," and blasts Obama's "economic missteps" with conservative red-meat language — for example: "This is the first time government has declared war on free enterprise."

The other major change comes in a chapter on health care. In the original hardcover, Romney tried to carefully distinguish between the Massachusetts law and the national version that was nearing passage as he wrote.

But the Massachusetts model has become Romney's bête noire among conservatives, who loathe the national reform they call "Obamacare." The rewritten paperback swings much harder, proclaiming that "Obamacare will not work and should be repealed," and "Obamacare is an unconstitutional federal incursion into the rights of states."

Other additions in that section blame the Massachusetts legislature for altering his plan, and the current Democratic administration of Governor Deval Patrick for botching the implementation.

The book, ironically enough, is titled No Apology—but why would anyone apologize when (like the editors at MiniTrue in 1984) they can simply go back and rewrite history.

But now Mitt has outdone himself with his pandering:

He's going tieless on network TV, strolling NASCAR pits in Daytona and sporting skinny Gap jeans bought for him by his wife.

His latest campaign book, just out in paperback, opens with a regular-guy scene: wealthy Mitt in a Wal-Mart checkout line, buying gifts for his grandsons and comparing the surroundings to Target, another discount store he says he's familiar with.

Okay - that the multimillionaire goes shopping at Wal-Mart when he's not campaigning is a bit tough to swallow, but other politicians (looking at you, Joe Biden) pretend to be "regular guys". And showing up at NASCAR events is right out of the politicians' playbook (after all, Obama, Hillary Clinton, and McCain all addressed a WWE crowd with lame wrestling jokes).

But wearing skinny jeans? Come on. No one wearing skinny jeans can be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. And does that even have a constituency? Does anyone want to see Romney in skinny jeans?

Rick Santorum Would Have Been Fiscally Conservative If ...

2011-02-13T22:47:00.001-05:00

Rick Santorum tells Philip Klein of the American Spectator that he would have been true to his fiscal conservative "principles" and opposed all the Bush-era spending and big government programs -- i.e., the programs he voted for and led the charge for in the U.S. Senate -- if only the Tea Party had been around then to pressure him.

That is too say, he would have been/will be fiscally conservative when it is politically expedient to be so.

Recall, that Rick Santorum recently claimed that he alone among presidential candidates could be considered a "tea party candidate" and decided he opposes earmarks after celebrating the ones he got.

Santorum also recently told prospective Iowa Caucus voter that the federal government should subsidize ethanol, a policy almost every (Al Gore included) recognizes is bad for the environment and bad for the economy (driving up taxes, fuel prices, and food prices). Everyone that is, except a few corn farmers in Iowa who receive ethanol subsidies.

Hey, notice a pattern here?

George Bush's Spending Record

2010-11-10T20:10:00.000-05:00

In a Wall Street Journal piece, Kim Strassell interviews George W. Bush, and talks about his spending record, but lets him get away with statistical nonsense.

One perception the president is determined to shift is that of his spending record. "Decision Points" contains one graphic: a table comparing, among other things, President Bush's average spending-to-GDP (19.6%) to that of Bill Clinton (19.8%), Bush 41 (21.9%), and Reagan (22.4%). It also shows that his deficit-to-GDP was 2%—half that of Bush 41 and Reagan.

Anyone with any sense of history might remember that Bill Clinton (and Republicans in Congress) cut spending as a percentage of GDP, and balanced the budget. Bush came in and (with Congress) grew spending and the deficit. The average spending measure includes the early years, in which Bush had not implemented all his spending increases (benefiting from spending cuts under Clinton) and the later years, in which spending skyrocketed.

For his number, Bush uses the years 2001-2008, for which he was in office--of course, Bush's budgets represent the fiscal years 2002-2009, which would increase his "average" to 20.2% of GDP. But even if we give Bush the benefit of ending in 2008, since some of the 2009 budget was enacted under Obama, federal spending as a percentage of GDP increase from 18.2% in 2000 to 20.7% in 2008. It increased every single year from 2000-2008, except 2007.

In 2009, the federal budget as a percent of GDP reached 24.7%, and this year reached an estimated 25.4%, the highest since 1945. Here is the federal budget data for anyone who doesn't trust Bush's memory of his spending record.

As the chart below illustrates--showing all years since 1980--not "averages", even using Bush's measure of years in office instead of years of budget, spending as a percent of GDP:

Increased in the early Reagan years, then declined;
Increased under George HW Bush;
Decreased under Clinton; and
Increased under Bush and Obama.

A Liberal Can't Win in Pennsylvania

2010-11-08T19:24:00.000-05:00

Throughout much of this election cycle, we heard a lot of "A conservative can't win in Pennsylvania," or specifically, "Pat Toomey is too conservative for Pennsylvania." Now that Pat Toomey won his election to the US Senate, AP writer Marc Levy has already spun the analysis that "Pat Toomey is too conservative to win reelection."

Three things really bother me about this analysis. First is the common refrain used by the media that Toomey is "more conservative" than Rick Santorum. This involves the mindless left-right dichotomy, instead of a common sense understanding of different views on fiscal, social, and foreign policy issues.

It is undeniable Toomey is more fiscally conservative than Santorum—who I don't consider a fiscal conservative at all, having supported all of Bush's overspending, expansion of Medicare, and defending to this day the use of earmark. (Indeed, what is curious is that the Sestak campaign both tried say "Toomey is more conservative than Santorum" and "Toomey supported Bush's deficits"—yet the reason Toomey scored higher than Santorum on indexes like the American Conservative Union's is that he voted against much of the deficit spending under Bush.

But the reason Rick Santorum is so demonized as an "arch-conservative" is his views, and moreso his rhetoric, on social isses and foreign policy. Few would consider Toomey "more conservative" than Santorum on social issues (in fact, many social conservatives considered Toomey not conservative enough). Like Santorum, Toomey is pro-life. But Toomey is much more moderate on things like same-sex marriage and gays in the military (having suggested he would support a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell). Toomey would not have tried to get Congress involved in the case of a single woman, Terry Shiavo. Nor would Toomey push a federal government program to promote marriage—which includes a taxpayer-funded website with dating tips.

On foreign policy, Toomey supported the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan (as did a majority of both parties in Congress), but never adopted the extreme rhetoric of Santorum against "islamo-fascism" and in support of further wars with Iran. (Indeed, I would suggest much of the neo-conservative views in support of these wars, in support of torture and the Patriot Act, and against the Mosque at Ground Zero are not conservative at all, as they are neither part of the libertarian nor Russell Kirk traditionalist views at all). Toomey and Santorum have very different views on immigration and free trade, which would likely baffle the media to figure out which is the "conservative" view. Comparing Toomey to Santorum is not well thought out at all.

My second issue is a long-standing one: that whenever the media urges "compromise" or "bipartisanship" it is always conservatives who need to move toward the middle, or Republicans who need to work with Democrats. For one example, see the Patriot-News post-election op-ed. Or consider how the media is already blaming the Tea-Party candidates for some losses—not the horrible candidates put out by the party hacks, whose records of tax-hikes, overspending, and corruption were why the Tea Partiers rejected them. This is much the same as when the establishment blamed the Club for Growth for GOP losses—not the incumbents who lost to Club for Growth candidates, then worked for Democrats (like Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, Wayne Gilchrest in Maryland, and Joe Schwarz in Michigan). Then you have cases like Arlen Specter, Lisa Murkowski, and Charlie Crist; whose rejection by Republican voters led them to try to switch parties or run as independents to maintain power. The media embraces these candidates only because they are more leftists, and blames conservatives—not obvious self-interested actions by incumbents—for any losses of any so-called moderates.

Finally, the lesson that should be learned is that a liberal cannot win in Pennsylvania. Indeed, Joe Sestak was one of few candidates to campaign as a true liberal state-wide, Joe Hoeffel, who has been uncompetitive each of his election attempts, being another. Ed Rendell, off his record as a Philadelphia mayor who cut taxes and took on the unions, ran as a moderate. So did Barack Obama, who promised to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.

In Pennsylvania's competitive Congressional races, the Democrats who won—Altmire, Holden, and Critz—voted against or opposed Obamacare. Those who lost—Patrick Murphy, Dahlkemper, Carney, Kanjorski, and Lentz (in Setak's seat)—all voted for Obamacare or supported it as a candidate.
The lesson should be clear: liberals and liberal policies lost. That may not be the same as say Conservative/Conservative ideas won; but the idea that anyone should move the to left to win re-election is laughable.

Do Voters Want to Go Back?

2010-11-06T12:06:00.001-04:00

Barack Obama framed Tuesday's election results quite nicely. Not, not in his post-election press conference, when he blamed the Democrat losses on the inability to "inform" the electorate, but in his run-up to the election, campaigning on the theme, "do you want to return to the failed policies of the past?"

Few voters, myself included, look back at the presidency of George W. Bush as some sort of utopia, or even "the good old days."

But if Obama is asking voters if they'd like to go back to the days before Democrats took control of Congress--i.e., 2006, when the unemployment rate was 4%--I think its pretty clear most voters said "Yes, we would!"

Or, since he wasn't up this cycle, if Obama was asking voters if they'd like to go back to the last time we had divided government, with Republicans controlling Congress and a Democrat president--i.e., during the mid-1990s, when the economy was flourishing--I'd say most voters like that ideas too.

Election Night Live-Blog

2010-11-02T15:00:00.001-04:00

I'll be live-blogging election night, from 4 pm to around midnight, along with the rest of the gang at the Commonwealth Foundation and the reporters at PA Independent, and some additional guests. We'll be focusing on the Pennsylvania results, but with some talk about what is happening across the country as well.

You can sign up for an email reminder, and then join in here.

<p>&amp;lt;a href="http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php/option=com_mobile/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=f69a53e615" &amp;gt;General Election Live Blog&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;</p>