Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[knight66]

The polls put Obama ahead: but as we know well over here, 'A week is a long time in politics'. Also, "Events dear boy, events."

Mike

[drogulus]

     I'm not in favor of solar power, I'm in favor of trying anything that might work. As the long history of government led or inspired or designed projects shows, the distinction between public and private initiative is not a difference between private success and public failure. This is a blinkered view. A successful economy depends on a dynamic relation between the parties. If government doesn't play its part (and there are no fixed rules about what the part can be beyond the law and Constitution, which is hardly a restriction) private industry will do what it always does when there is no power grid, no utilities, no commercial code, no road system, no airports, no bridges or dams or canals or railroads built or partially built by public money. That is, they do very little. How could they? There's nothing there to build on. All you have is a few rich landowners and peasants to work the fields.

[drogulus]

     The idea that government is just "interference" is a shallow misreading of the history of economic development. Capitalism is a government program, as is the so called free market, about as artificial a construct as I can imagine, that requires constant re-balancing by regulators to preserve the illusion of freedom. Free markets require more, not less regulation.

[chasmaniac]

     The idea that government is just "interference" is a shallow misreading of the history of economic development. Capitalism is a government program, as is the so called free market, about as artificial a construct as I can imagine, that requires constant re-balancing by regulators to preserve the illusion of freedom. Free markets require more, not less regulation.

Sensible chap, you are. May I add that what we call property is itself an artifact of state?

[Karl Henning]

. . . May I add that what we call property is itself an artifact of state?

In a practical sense ever since, yes; but the concept of property in many places must pre-date the creation of a state. (Maybe.)

[chasmaniac]

In a practical sense ever since, yes; but the concept of property in many places must pre-date the creation of a state. (Maybe.)

Another sensible chap! Sure, in the mists of time... Who knows? And then there is personal property, the clothes on one's back and so forth. Such things get very complicated very quickly and I make no broad claims about them. But bank accounts, trust funds, mortgages, student loans, real estate, copyright, corporations and large-scale markets "free" or otherwise can only exist in the context of an established legal order. The libertarian fantasy reverses this, seeking to root this state function, and limit it to the service of, a concept of property as naturally occuring. That's the view what irks me. Nature has nothing to do with it.

Uhoh. I've gone and said something serious, haven't I?

[Karl Henning]

Right! Unless we can all convert our liquid assets to precious metals (which as individuals we can manage at home), all our money is, well, paper printed and technically owned by, the guvmint. And nought wrong widdat.

[The new erato]

My liquid assets are in my 800 bottle wine cellar.

[chasmaniac]

My liquid assets are in my 800 bottle wine cellar.

Riches beyond gold! 

[Todd]

If government doesn't play its part (and there are no fixed rules about what the part can be beyond the law and Constitution, which is hardly a restriction) private industry will do what it always does when there is no power grid, no utilities, no commercial code, no road system, no airports, no bridges or dams or canals or railroads built or partially built by public money.

It's rare to see such a perfect example of a straw man.  Who, anywhere, on this forum or elsewhere, is advocating that the government shouldn't play its part?  Even the most ardent free marketeers are all about government enforcement of property rights, which is one of the foundations of a successful economy.  Discussions most commonly center around the proper extent of government involvement in the economy. 

[Christo]

Einer Elhauge: If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did The Founding Fathers Back Them? TNR, here

[Todd]

This would be more significant if Elhauge were on the SCOTUS. 

What's that quip from Justice Robert Jackson - We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.

[eyeresist]

There goes the gay vote!

Romney was bully who cut off a gay pupil's fringe, say ex-school friends

"They came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground," the article said, "As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors."

"It was a hack job," recalled one of the friends, Phillip Maxwell, a lawyer and childhood friend of Romney, who said he was in the dorm room when the incident occurred. "It was vicious." Another of the friends, Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor who volunteered for Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, admitted helping restrain the boy. "It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me," he said.

Mr Romney's campaign initially denied the incident. "Anyone who knows Mitt Romney knows that he doesn't have a mean-spirited bone in his body," Andrea Saul said in a statement.

"The stories of 50 years ago seem exaggerated and off base and Governor Romney has no memory of participating in these incidents."

In a separate allegation, Mr Romney is said to have taunted a different closeted gay student by chanting "Atta girl!" every time the boy tried to speak in class.

[Todd]

There goes the gay vote!

Popped into a couple online news sources - WP included.  The user comments offer some free entertainment, that's for sure.  How long will Romney be dogged by this incident?  Oh, probably shouldn't have used the word 'dogged.'

[Mirror Image]

I personally am for gay marriage. This is the 21st Century, not the 18th Century. They should be treated and given the same rights as people who are heterosexual. Whether Obama endorsed gay marriage for their vote is up in the air but I personally don't believe it is a country's job to tell people how to live their lives and to deny them the same rights heterosexual couples have seems unjust.

[coffee]

Einer Elhauge: If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did The Founding Fathers Back Them? TNR, here

Very, very innarestin.

[drogulus]

      The Romney revelation wasn't much of a surprise, was it? He was a passable governor in Massachusetts where his personal creepiness was in check.

      Romney will not be elected President. In the next few months his support will decline. Conservatives don't like him any better than they liked McCain, and moderates are revolted by his behavior and lack of principles. Liberals will not sit on the sidelines. Obama will win, not in a landslide but by a comfortable margin.

      The only reason Romney is the nominee is that the Republican Party has crossed a threshold. They can no longer field a candidate acceptable to the broad middle of the electorate that can pass muster with the party filtering mechanism, now in the control of people who used to inhabit the dark corners, locked in attics etc. It a God, gold and guns party, no one else is welcome and not many want to be.

      There is a solution. We could move to nonpartisan reapportionment, which would force both parties to compete for the center. It's a state level fix, so it will take time to implement, but I think it's coming.

[Todd]

We could move to nonpartisan reapportionment

Let's see, the term gerrymandering dates back 200 years exactly.  Yes, I think non-partisan apportionment will come any day now.

[drogulus]

Let's see, the term gerrymandering dates back 200 years exactly.  Yes, I think non-partisan apportionment will come any day now.

     It will happen. There are different models used now, and each state will choose its own. Most will be bipartisan commissions appointed by governors and state legislators, some will arrive by ballot measures. The hurdle is the state party apparatus which benefits most from partisan extremism. Sometimes it will take a referendum to get past opposition, sometimes a reform governor will do it, fulfilling a campaign promise. Once a few more states implement it momentum will build.

[Todd]

It will happen.

Wishful thinking.  Both parties benefit from it too much to change to some idealized or even practically non-partisan scheme.  A state here or there may change, but it will not sweep the nation in the next 10, 20, 30, or 40 or more years.  Of the various mechanisms used to thwart partisanship, only open primaries are valuable, and then only to an extent.  Bipartisan commissions, if evenly split, produce nothing (see the FEC), and ballot measures are just awful, leading to years of legal challenges and unintended consequences.  None of this is new.  The Founders themselves warned of the evils of factions - right before splitting into factions.  And do remember, any reform can be rolled back, altered, or manipulated.