Ann Althouse has a post that triggers the thought: Why are we whining about debates?
There is substantial butt-hurt in the blogs about how how candidates X, Y, and Z are getting short shrift (is there any other kind?) in the debates. If we are capitalists, and presidential debates are a marketplace of information about candidates, then why is the purported demand for more face-time for Santorum, Bachmann, Paul, and Huntsman not being met by more events like the Texas Patriots PAC?
The major reasons I can think of are:
Candidate schedules are too full,
There is not deemed sufficient legitimate interest,
Evil forces of the 1% are scheming away in the Dark Nexus of Communism (DNC) to ensure the weakest horse wins the GOP nomination.
But so, what? Given the low bar set by modern internet technology, why don’t we get some of the ‘second-tier’ candidates to discuss ideas and policies? Sure, the ability to attract eyeballs for a whole hour of streamed debate is going to be low, but the chance to chew on some harder topics at length would be welcome. Campaigns could derive fistfuls of short clips that would help get Americans talking about something more substantial than the latest random charges against candidate X.
The Puffington Host editors offer this collection of GOP Congressmen using the word ‘uncertainty’. Props to Todd Young, USNA ’95, appearing at 0:55:
The Puffington Host, normally such a bastion of wisdom and erudition, is unexpectedly daft here:
With the economy in a slump for nearly four years, corporate executives and conservative politicians have repeatedly invoked “uncertainty” as a major barrier to American job-creation. The “uncertainty” jab is a go-to talking point for any congressional Republican looking to tag President Barack Obama as a tax-raising, regulation-obsessed foe of American businesses.
But according to banking data compiled by economic research firm Moebs Services, the uncertainty plaguing the American economy has nothing to do with government regulations or taxes on millionaires. It’s an uncertainty driven squarely by consumers and small-businesses who are worried about their short-term financial prospects. And it’s been going on since well before Obama took up residence in the White House.
It must be the case that Founding Father James Madison, and The Federalist #62 slipped their memory at the Puffington Host (emphasis mine):
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.
Another word for ‘no man. . .can guess’ would be. . .uncertainty?
Still further on:
What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.
Capitalists are reduced to the role of mice in a cage with the government python, wondering who gets devoured next.
Less metaphorically, there is the Stupor Committee. We all sort of know the story ends badly, on November 23rd, but no one can tell yet whose ox will be gored.
It sure is a good thing we have Moebs to guide us in this brave new world, since we’ve Progressed beyond the simple, common-sense analysis of Dead White Guys like Madison.
In the former case, I am to view Politico as some wholly innocent information nozzle, and in the latter case, Julian Assange and Bradly Manning as wholly innocent information nozzles. Your opinions may vary substantially from mine, but stand by while I develop the notion of “shooting the messenger,” and why I don’t think any of the above merit such a label.
“Shooting the messenger,” I contend, implies:
(a) A party in an authority position over the messenger. If you are, say, a the guy at the Metro station whose task it was to inform me at 8:30 AM that an “all day” pass does not mean “all day” in the normal sense, but a special “after 9:30 AM” sense peculiar to the Metro, then you are indeed the messenger, communicating the policy of an authority, and shooting you would be crass.
(b) A lack of a market incentive for delivering the message. Politico needs to have at least one allegation of sexual harassment against Herman Cain prove more substantial than a finger-pointing exercise for Politico to look more credible than the Weekly World News. Now, if Politico wants to print that a six-eyed alien from Planet Q’uddlethumpin’ has endorsed Herman Cain’s candidacy, and thus be honest about its substantive content, then its mimetic warfare will be less of an odious distraction from real policy questions.
The media in general has so thoroughly abandoned any notion of a free, balanced presentation that it is an insult to honest messengers to be equated with these cheap propaganda mongers like Politico.
(c) A message that is not a warlike act. I don’t know how anybody can conflate Manning’s and Assange’s actions with anything other than a warlike act. If you think your government behaves dishonorably at various time and on various issues, then the way to deal with that is at the ballot box. A U.S. citizen giving away bulk information like Manning who is looking for sympathy should check the dictionary between s***t and syphilis, for all I care. We can have a theological discussion about sympathy for the lad’s soul, fine, but his actions are indefensible in my opinion.
As for Assange, it’s a miracle of modern technology that one twerp can inflict so much damage. However, his organization is substantially similar to Al Qaeda in my book. The fact that he draws breath, and he and his organization are not long since atomized probably means he has good friends. Notwithstanding any theological argument about his soul, as with Manning’s, Assange had better hope his friends remain good. Assange has broad jumped the line of demarcation between “things you do” and “things you just don’t do”.
Anything unfortunate happening to Assange before he dies at a peaceful old age is an argument in favor of being careful when you make enemies.
Something should be said about the inevitable ‘freedom fighter’ equivalencies that will ensue. Bore me not with such piffle. From what I can tell, Manning was not motivated by anything beyond the vacuous 20-something angst which Commies have pumped into our schools. I’m not a scholar of the fellow, and stand by for correction. In any case, a figure of George Washington’s caliber he is not. Equating a punk with any great American is a disservice to the great American.
Summarizing, the Metro attendant in example (a) is the only situation in which I think a “shooting the messenger” claim has merit. Thrashing people for ‘doing their job’ is in bad taste. Also unimpressive: demanding sympathy for the likes of Politico or Assange/Manning.
SPARTANBURG, S.C.
We had to leave Wofford College about an hour after last night’s Republican debate ended, because the Herman Cain campaign was having a private post-debate event at the Marriott Hotel. So I didn’t have time to upload many of my photos and video of the “spin room” activity, nor to register much of the headline reaction:
Was it really that bad? The one glaring omission was that they never discussed the situation in Mexico, where narco-terrorist gangs and human trafficking pose a serious risk that our next-door neighbor could descend into “failed state” nightmare. It could be like having Somalia or Waziristan on our southern border, and yet Mexico was never mentioned last night.
My other big gripe about Saturday’s debate? Two words: Jon Huntsman.
Reports swarm the man I dubbed “Governor Asterisk.” Jon Huntsman represents no significant Republican constituency, he worked for the Obama administration, and his poll numbers are less than the margin of error. So of course, the media love him.
Reporters interview Eric Fernstrom, a top adviser to Mitt Romney’s campaign. Here’s an interview I did with Romney’s state campaign chairman, South Carolina treasurer Curtis Loftis:
“I fully expect to win South Carolina,” Loftis says. “People love Mitt Romney.”
As I said, however, there was no time to upload that last night, because we all piled into our cars and did a caravan over to the Marriott for the Cain campaign post-debate party.
Linda Hansen and Mark Block of the Herman Cain campaign. A few minutes later, Block held up his cigarette pack, a signal that it was time for a smoke break. We went outside and I asked how the campaign was going. Block said, “We’re kicking ass, Stacy.” The event ended while we were out smoking, and pretty soon the Cain entourage poured out the doors, loading into two SUVs. I saw Cain briefly and he said they were flying back to Atlanta, then to Wisconsin on Monday before going to Iowa on Tuesday. Then they roared off. “A million miles an hour,” as Block says.
Here’s an interview with a South Carolina supporter of Herman Cain who attended the post-debate event at the Marriott:
When the Cain event ended, our blogger caravan across town to the home of a Tea Party family who showed us some true Southern hospitality:
Grassroots conservative operative Austin James relaxes and discusses the 2012 campaign as bloggers gathered at an after-party that went on into the wee hours.
Herman Cain supporters Donna and Dennis Thorstad hosted a crew of bloggers who stayed up talking politics — and singing oldies — until 2 a.m. Mrs. Thorstad got up Sunday morning and fixed breakfast for everybody. They’re awesome.
My 12-year-old son Jefferson did an excellent job as my blog assistant on this trip. We are about to get out on the road and head back 450 miles north toward home. Hit the freaking tip jar!
A new book claims Newt Gingrich spent $1 million on jewelry to “buy off” his reluctant wife and stop her objecting to his running for president.
“Election 2012: The Battle Begins,” by reporters Tom Bevan and Carl Cannon, follows up on previous reports about Gingrich’s unpaid $500,000 charge account at Tiffany’s and his Greek cruise with his [third] wife, Callista.
Gingrich’s staff denied the latest account, which details the GOP hopeful’s extravagant spending while he professes to be a fiscal conservative. Unidentified sources in the book are believed to be former Gingrich aides, many of whom now work for rival Rick Perry.
A hit-job on a GOP candidate blamed on Team Perry? I’m shocked.
Opera is one of those forms of expression that I do not mind admitting is art, yet avoid to the fullest extent possible. Via Slashdot, one of the biggest cretins of recent vintage will be going to the opera house, emphasis mine:
“Betrayal, lust, secrecy, power: there’s no shortage of dramatic intrigue in the story of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Perhaps that’s why work has begun on an opera based on the life of Julian Assange in Melbourne. Opera Australia held – with Julian Assange’s approval – a series of in-house workshops last month after its artistic director, Lyndon Terracini, came up with the idea and asked composer Jonathan Dreyfus to write the music. ‘It’s got everything that a dramatic musical work needs,’ says Eddie Perfect, who played Assange in the initial process.
Everything? In this particular case, one is tempted to suggest a JDAM.
Assange has waged war against the United States and allies. The fact that he hasn’t been brought to room temperature yet is as interesting as the audience for this pap. No, I won’t generalize from the fact that this is done as an opera to suggest that the audience for it is a pack of anti-Western commies: there may be a few rational people who enjoy opera for its own sake.
“We look forward to the rapid fulfillment of this commitment so that Countrywide can sign another record-breaking agreement with Fannie Mae,” Mozilo finished.
Mozilo’s almost 20-year-old quote is relevant again thanks to the uproar New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg caused last week when he criticized Occupy Wall Street’s view of the financial crisis.
Bloomberg said, “it was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress, who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. … They were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will.”
No, Bloomberg, the correct lesson is that the Community Reinvestment Act was false, and not in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. Only the states should ever be interacting with citizens concerning their housing. The federal government should, at most, set some high-level standards. Then, the federal government could perform a useful oversight function.
In other words, beside the moral hazard involved in giving too much power to DC, we also lose the vertical check of having somebody being a watchdog. And that’s all without trotting out the Hayekian argument about the failure of overly centralized planning.
That is the correct lesson of Fannie/Freddie: they don’t work, they were never founded to work, and real improvement will not commence until their graft-laden simulation of working is brought to a halt.
Meanwhile, one hopes that NYC is capable of electing a useful mayor one of these days.
More at Power Line including a mocking tune which I may get to, later.
SPARTANBURG, S.C.
When Rick Santorum entered the post-debate “spin room” here at Wofford College, I was the first to greet him. “How’s it going, Stacy?” and his lovely wife also said hi. Quickly switched to video and started the interview, before the scrum assembled around us:
I’ll have more later, but have to get out of the media filing center in five minutes, as we’re running late to an important post-debate event.
