Sunday, January 29, 2012
Cain Endorses Gingrich
Former presidential candidate Herman Cain endorsed Newt Gingrich on Saturday, according to CNN.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
"Newt-Mare" Seems Appropriate
Weren't Republicans supposed to knock Obama out of the White House? The first half of this video is what matters most.
Do you live in a bubble?
Take this quiz to find out. While you are at Power Line, you may want to look at more of Steve Hayward's posts.
Friday, January 27, 2012
The Idea of an "Outsider"
"The Republican presidential candidate with the line of credit at Tiffany's is making fun of the candidate with the Swiss bank account. The one who got wealthy working the inside Washington game is whaling away at the one who got wealthy working the angles of high finance." That quote was taken from an article just published on CBS's website and speaks to this year's theatrical production brought to us by the Republican party. The article itself though asks how can Gingrich get away with calling himself, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, an outsider, a man of the people, a commoner? The question is a good one and the answer is simple: he cannot; but nor can the other candidates.
The idea of being a Washington outsider reminds me a lot of William Cronon's critique of contemporary society's notion of the wilderness. In his famous book, The Trouble With Wilderness, Cronon argues (among other things) that humans can never experience true wilderness because wilderness is something completely void of human presence. This line of logic can also be applied to politics. In many ways, politicians try to appeal to constituents/the American public as being "one of them", but the truth is their position as an elected official prevents them as being "one of us". To be viewed as "one of us", a politician would have to leave his/her office.
If either one of the Republican Presidential nominees wanted to be one of us, they should try, for example, living on a budget so tight they need to decide between dinner or fuel. Their world of presidential politics is vastly different from the world of reality and their talk i just that.
The idea of being a Washington outsider reminds me a lot of William Cronon's critique of contemporary society's notion of the wilderness. In his famous book, The Trouble With Wilderness, Cronon argues (among other things) that humans can never experience true wilderness because wilderness is something completely void of human presence. This line of logic can also be applied to politics. In many ways, politicians try to appeal to constituents/the American public as being "one of them", but the truth is their position as an elected official prevents them as being "one of us". To be viewed as "one of us", a politician would have to leave his/her office.
If either one of the Republican Presidential nominees wanted to be one of us, they should try, for example, living on a budget so tight they need to decide between dinner or fuel. Their world of presidential politics is vastly different from the world of reality and their talk i just that.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Raising the Roof
Today the senate
struck down a resolution which would have denied President Obama the
remaining 1.2 trillion dollars he requested be added to the debit
ceiling along side the already accepted 900 billion. This was a
purely symbolic move however. Regardless of the out come of the vote
the GOP lacked the 2/3 majority to override President Obama’s
inevitable veto. Even so one has to wonder outside of those who
registered legitimate objections to raising the debit ceiling, such
as senator Coburn, how many of the republicans simply did this in
order to appeal to their base. Every one suffered during the
political gridlock of last year especially because of the loss of our
AAA credit rating. Thus raising the debit ceiling seems like a
prudent course of action. Even so those who point toward or massive
debit are correct and a solution must be found.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Statement of the Union
I'm just going to begin with my main thought: this was one of President Obama's strongest speeches. The militaristic metaphors, nationalist statements, and firm tone portrayed him as a strong leader and demonstrated a president who (at least on the surface) is confident that he has a winning message. Three quick things that really struck me:
1) Veiled micro-targeting in a very broad, universalist speech.
President Obama clearly understands that if he is to win in November, he needs the support of his base. When he moved to the more "policy-focused" section of his speech, he began by speaking to the working class Americans--who have traditionally supported the Democrats--by calling for a reinvestment in American manufacturing and training programs for the unemployed. He then moved to teachers, saying that they need help, should not be forced to teach to a test, and should not be the scapegoats for what many people see as an underperforming educational system (trust me--as the son of a teacher, this is a big deal). He spoke to college students by promising to lower loan payments and increase work-study programs. He spoke to Latinos by calling for the passage of the DREAM Act. He spoke to women by calling for equal pay and the end of gender discrimination in the workplace. He spoke to Jews with his promise of "ironclad commitment--and I mean ironclad commitment--to Israel's security." This was a rally-the-base speech designed to not sound super campaigny.
2) The Closing. It was an incredible metaphor. The full text is available here. Just read the last few paragraphs. His speech writer needs a raise for that one. Very impressive.
3) He finally gave a laundry list of accomplishments, communicating the successes of his administration effectively for the first time. A huge criticism (that Republicans are now beginning to feast on) of President Obama is that he hasn't done anything--except ObamaCare. GRRRR! The president began with accomplishments that have received universal support--ending the war in Iraq, killing Osama Bin Laden. But he also discussed financial regulations, health care, immigration, energy, and manufacturing policies his administration has been instrumental in passing. Put together, it sounds like a lot.
What did you all think of the speech? How big of a boost (or fall) will it net him?
1) Veiled micro-targeting in a very broad, universalist speech.
President Obama clearly understands that if he is to win in November, he needs the support of his base. When he moved to the more "policy-focused" section of his speech, he began by speaking to the working class Americans--who have traditionally supported the Democrats--by calling for a reinvestment in American manufacturing and training programs for the unemployed. He then moved to teachers, saying that they need help, should not be forced to teach to a test, and should not be the scapegoats for what many people see as an underperforming educational system (trust me--as the son of a teacher, this is a big deal). He spoke to college students by promising to lower loan payments and increase work-study programs. He spoke to Latinos by calling for the passage of the DREAM Act. He spoke to women by calling for equal pay and the end of gender discrimination in the workplace. He spoke to Jews with his promise of "ironclad commitment--and I mean ironclad commitment--to Israel's security." This was a rally-the-base speech designed to not sound super campaigny.
2) The Closing. It was an incredible metaphor. The full text is available here. Just read the last few paragraphs. His speech writer needs a raise for that one. Very impressive.
3) He finally gave a laundry list of accomplishments, communicating the successes of his administration effectively for the first time. A huge criticism (that Republicans are now beginning to feast on) of President Obama is that he hasn't done anything--except ObamaCare. GRRRR! The president began with accomplishments that have received universal support--ending the war in Iraq, killing Osama Bin Laden. But he also discussed financial regulations, health care, immigration, energy, and manufacturing policies his administration has been instrumental in passing. Put together, it sounds like a lot.
What did you all think of the speech? How big of a boost (or fall) will it net him?
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Romney's Taxes and American Income Discrepancy
Mitt Romeny's campaign released details of his federal tax returns on Tuesday morning, shedding new light on the Republican candidates vast wealth as well as adding a new dimension to an emerging central theme for the battle for the White House. Economic inequality has become a focal point for both the Republic Campaign and Obama's Democratic Party. With the deficit and budget in dire need for reform, the income tax will continue to generate discussion and debate throughout the 2012 campaign. This article in the Economist provides a practical and moderate strategy towards effectively dealing with income inequality.
The Ironies of Politics
http://www.economist.com/node/21542765
This article provides a good description of Romney's experience at Bain and the company itself, an issue at the forefront of the inter-Republican debate as well as with Democrats. In my opinion, it is crazy for Republicans and even the Democrats to attack Romney's experiences at Bain and the company itself. Private equity and related industries are high risk, high growth sectors of our economy that have funded some of the most innovative and revolutionary companies in the United States today. It is no wonder that traditional european style capitalist countries are moving towards our business model. Bain made so much money because it made companies more efficient and innovative, which yes requires layoffs and restructuring but also gives rise to higher productivity and thus growth, which helps our economy sustain job creation and expansion. In a time when our economy is in needs of fundamental restructuring and improved efficiency, am I delusional to believe that Romney, an experienced business man who came in the top 5% of his class at HBS, is a better candidate than Obama, who has extensive experience as a "community organizer" and as a one-term senator?
If you can't open that link, here:
Schumpeter
Romney the revolutionary
Mitt Romney’s career says a lot about how American business has changed
Jan 14th 2012 | from the print edition
IN A Republican primary field full of radicals, Mitt Romney is the establishment candidate. Yet earlier in his career he was a revolutionary. Hard though it may be to imagine Mr Romney waving a pitchfork or manning a barricade, Schumpeter is not joking. As a businessman, Mr Romney was at the heart of three revolutions.
The first was the rise of meritocracy in corporate America. In the 1950s and 1960s many people thought management was just a matter of applied common sense. Companies wanted their executives to be “well-rounded men”, not rocket scientists. But the 1960s and 1970s saw the rise of a new kind of brain-intensive company: private-equity outfits such as Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and strategy consultancies such as the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and its stepchild Bain and Company.
These companies valued analytical skills above all else—certainly above experience or golf handicap. Bruce Henderson, BCG’s founder, recruited the smartest kids from the nation’s best business schools. Mr Romney was the archetype of this new breed: he graduated in the top 5% of his class at the Harvard Business School. The earnest young man also loved looking under the hood of companies to see how their wiring might be improved. He joined BCG in 1975 and left a couple of years later to join the even more brain-obsessed Bain and Company.
The second revolution, as Benjamin Wallace-Wells wrote in New Yorkmagazine, was the idea that a company’s purpose is to make money for shareholders. Post-war American capitalism was dominated by managers, not shareholders. These salaried sultans ruled over sprawling conglomerates with elaborate hierarchies and ornate headquarters. The three-martini lunch was de rigueur. And why not? American business was on top of the world. Wall Street was a complacent club. Japanese companies were not even on the radar.
But by the time Mr Romney came of age in the 1970s this comfortable world was crumbling. Post-war prosperity had given way to stagflation. The Japanese had started to run rings around slow American giants. And in 1976 a brilliant article by two business academics, Michael Jensen of Harvard and William Meckling of the University of Rochester, offered a radical diagnosis. Corporate America had a principal-agent problem, they said. Agents (ie, managers) were feathering their own nests rather than serving the interests of their principals (shareholders). The solution was to force managers to focus on shareholder value.
Bill Bain heartily agreed. He had left BCG because he was frustrated with a business model which hinged on consultants producing a report and then moving on to a new client. He wanted to forge more intimate relations with fewer companies. And he took this line of thinking a big step further. Why not go the whole hog and invest money in the firms you advised? Why not buy out bad managers and let your brilliant young consultants rebuild their companies from the ground up? The result was Bain Capital, a company that Mr Romney ran from 1984 to 1999, earning a fortune estimated at $200m.
Bain Capital was a wallet-bursting success. It turned $37m of capital under management in 1984 into $500m in 1994 (and $66 billion today). It kick-started businesses such as Staples (which now has 2,000 stores selling office supplies) and the Sports Authority. But it was also a symptom of a wider change. It was not just people like Mr Romney who were pushing American companies to shape up. It was also the new rigours of global competition. Firms of every description sought to squeeze out inefficiencies, sell off non-core businesses and close redundant operations, all in the name of shareholder value.
The third revolution was the shift from manufacturing to services. George Romney, Mitt’s father, made solid things for 23 years, running the American Motors Corporation for eight of them. Such careers are now unusual. Bright, ambitious young Americans seldom spend their whole lives making products with ballbearings in them. Bain Capital “re-engineered” 150 companies in a bewildering variety of industries during Mitt’s tenure. Mr Romney and his ilk have made corporate America more efficient. But for many people this has involved an upending of the natural order of things, with young men with flip-charts wandering into proud firms and telling veteran managers what to do.
As a candidate, Mr Romney trumpets his 30 years of experience in business. With the economy in such trouble, he argues, America needs a corporate troubleshooter in the White House, not a former community organiser. His opponents put it differently. Even some Republicans are painting him as a heartless corporate raider who has torn apart firms and families to make money for shareholders. Just as the 2008 election involved a debate on race relations, so the 2012 election will involve one on American capitalism. How ruthless, exactly, do voters want it to be?
The debate will be driven by emotions, not facts. The former are easy to inflame; the latter tricky to pin down. Did Mr Romney create 100,000 jobs while at Bain Capital, as he claims, or destroy more? Without knowing what would have happened in the absence of Bain’s intervention, one can only guess. Mr Romney says he made firms more productive, thus enriching America. His rivals—even Newt Gingrich, an unlikely sans-culottes—gripe that he enriched himself.
A tale of two visions
Still, it is a debate worth having. Mr Obama wants to curb capitalism’s excesses. Mr Romney offers, in his own words, “a clear and unapologetic defence” of “the American ideals of economic freedom”. He even tried to explain the virtues of profits to an Occupy Wall Street heckler. This year’s election will not just be about Mr Obama. Voters will have their say on capitalism, too.
This is an Unfair Comparison to Dwight...
Wife 1. Wife 2. Wife 3. versus Bears. Beets. Battlestar Gallactica
Monday, January 23, 2012
No way... maybe if I become president... maybe in April... well, alright, I guess this Tuesday
America's infatuation with Mitt Romney's tax returns continues. After conceding to popular indignation, or perhaps just voters' raw curiosity, Mitt Romney has agreed to release his 2010 tax returns, along with 2011 estimates, well ahead of schedule. Depending on the extent of his fortune and how voters perceive his financial activities, Romney's willingness to release them could either quell skepticism, or prove to be another strike against him. We will have to see whether Americans sentence him to the pillory, or prove to be appreciative of his gesture. The attached Politico article outlines why Romney's tax returns have caused such an uproar
The "Bain" of Romney's Existence
Knute for Newt
I enjoy reading the Economist because I think it highlights issues that many American news sources gloss over. The statistics in this article on Gingrich were awfully interesting, and I agree with their assessment that Mitt
might need to take a bolder line if he is going to become the nominee.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/01/south-carolina-primary-1
As an Obama supporter, I fear Mitt the most because I think most moderates (myself included) agree with a lot of what he has to say. With Confidence Men fresh in my head, I think someone who is clearly an exceptional manager will attract voters, as well. So I'm sitting back and cheering for Newt. His resurgence might make Romney focus more heavily on "Conservative" issues rather than the economics, etc, that are his strong suit. If that happens, the President will have an easier time of branding Romney as a candidate who will be hamstrung by his exceptionally conservative base and unable to represent most moderate Americans.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/01/south-carolina-primary-1
As an Obama supporter, I fear Mitt the most because I think most moderates (myself included) agree with a lot of what he has to say. With Confidence Men fresh in my head, I think someone who is clearly an exceptional manager will attract voters, as well. So I'm sitting back and cheering for Newt. His resurgence might make Romney focus more heavily on "Conservative" issues rather than the economics, etc, that are his strong suit. If that happens, the President will have an easier time of branding Romney as a candidate who will be hamstrung by his exceptionally conservative base and unable to represent most moderate Americans.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Nourishing the Planet
As part of my work as a food and agriculture research intern at Worldwatch Institute this semester, I'm going to be going some writing for one of the Worldwatch blogs, Nourishing the Planet. My work probably won't be up for a few weeks, but if you're at all interested in food issues, check it out! Here's the link: http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/.
Gingrich= Bad News
As Sam stated "I'm not happy about this [Gingrich winning] at all." As Governor of the Great and Noble state of New Jersey, Chris Christie stated, the former speaker has embarrassed our party and our country with his various infractions throughout his years in congress. I understand that many conservative republicans do not trust Romney, I've heard them over the phone, but what this faction of the party must realize NOW is that Gingrich is not even close to electable. I hope that conservative republicans realize that if they vote for Gingrich they are handing the election to Obama for another four years. This election is and has to be about removing Obama from office and Romney is the only republican candidate that has a shot. Newt simply does not have the social fiber, the trust of the American people, and control of his mouth (like Perry, I cringe every time he opens his mouth). I am also shocked that conservatives in South Carolina voted for a man who recently attacked a republican candidate for practicing Capitalism.. That's disgraceful.
Also who cares if Romney is a mormon, what is the difference? (I understand the difference, it is just dumb). Social Conservatives need to get their priorities in order and vote for the one candidate that has a realistic chance to challenge socialism and redirect our nation in the RIGHT direction. Newt is offering to redirect this country, but it is idealistic and the complete wrong direction. Ultimately, Romney is the far better candidate to represent the ideals of the GOP in a national forum.
Can Big "D" Democratic Populism Work Twice?
Earlier today, I received an email from the Obama re-election campaign which outlined the major themes of Tuesday's State of the Union address. Watching, I could help but notice a developing trend in the President's recent speeches--a trend that began during a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas in December. In that speech, President Obama spent nearly an hour arguing that the present is a "make-or-break moment for the middle class and those trying to get into the middle class." In just two minutes and thirty seconds, today's message to supporters closely echoed the two main points of the Osawatomie speech: growing income gaps are a problem and big business is the enemy.
It seems we've stumbled on his message heading into November, and it oozes Democratic populism. Presidents in the past have come into office (including Barack Obama himself) on a liberal populist message, but championing that message while wearing the suit of the ultimate Washington elite has proved difficult, sending men like Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter to one-term presidencies. Bill Clinton, while in a very similar situation to Obama, chose the "triangulation" method and captured the middle of the political spectrum in the process--becoming the first Democrat to win back-to-back presidential elections since FDR. That doesn't seem to be the Obama way.
Considering populist movements like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street dominating the news throughout his time in office, it's possible that Obama has found a winning message. On the other hand, however, it's possible that this message just can't win twice. Democrats have tried to sell the "anti-Big Business/pro-working and middle class" message since William Jennings Bryan at the turn of the 20th Century. Since then, only Clinton, FDR, and Wilson have been elected to the presidency twice--and Clinton never received 50% of the vote.
In case you're interested:
State of the Union Preview video
Osawatomie Speech
It seems we've stumbled on his message heading into November, and it oozes Democratic populism. Presidents in the past have come into office (including Barack Obama himself) on a liberal populist message, but championing that message while wearing the suit of the ultimate Washington elite has proved difficult, sending men like Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter to one-term presidencies. Bill Clinton, while in a very similar situation to Obama, chose the "triangulation" method and captured the middle of the political spectrum in the process--becoming the first Democrat to win back-to-back presidential elections since FDR. That doesn't seem to be the Obama way.
Considering populist movements like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street dominating the news throughout his time in office, it's possible that Obama has found a winning message. On the other hand, however, it's possible that this message just can't win twice. Democrats have tried to sell the "anti-Big Business/pro-working and middle class" message since William Jennings Bryan at the turn of the 20th Century. Since then, only Clinton, FDR, and Wilson have been elected to the presidency twice--and Clinton never received 50% of the vote.
In case you're interested:
State of the Union Preview video
Osawatomie Speech
An Interesting Development
With Rick Santorum being declared the winner of the Iowa Caucus and Newt Gingrich taking South Carolina the battle for the republican nomination has been blown wide open. As a result Mitt Romney is no longer the defacto candidate. With no clear front runner, this race could become a long slow slog to the finish. If this happens will a shared loathing of President Obama’s policies be enough to unite the party or will some abstain? Only time will tell.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Gingrich Takes South Carolina
"Since 1980, every South Carolina GOP primary winner has gone on to win the party’s nomination."
"Not happy about this at all" -Brandon De Graff
If you can DREAM it, you can do it. Or can you? Thursday Debate topic info
Debate topic: the DREAM act
Arguments in favor: Amy & Cris
Arguments against its passage: Knute & Nick
Moderator: Galia
Here are some helpful links to understand the basics of the bill:
A very helpful, concise summary of the bill itself, and the arguments in favor and against...if you read any of these links, read this one!
http://www.legallanguage.com/legal-articles/dream-act-summary/
A slightly longer, more thorough explanation of the bill from the White House.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/01/get-facts-dream-act
Article highlighting the Acts importance for the upcoming elections and potential voters especially in relation to the Republican nominee front runner Romney.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/21/romney-stance-on-dream-act-magnified-in-florida/
Arguments in favor: Amy & Cris
Arguments against its passage: Knute & Nick
Moderator: Galia
Here are some helpful links to understand the basics of the bill:
A very helpful, concise summary of the bill itself, and the arguments in favor and against...if you read any of these links, read this one!
http://www.legallanguage.com/legal-articles/dream-act-summary/
A slightly longer, more thorough explanation of the bill from the White House.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/01/get-facts-dream-act
Article highlighting the Acts importance for the upcoming elections and potential voters especially in relation to the Republican nominee front runner Romney.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/21/romney-stance-on-dream-act-magnified-in-florida/
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Congressional Aid
For this semester in DC, I intend to merge my interest in government with my deep passion for photography as often as possible. I love using the medium of photography to tell stories of the world around me; pictures have a way of capturing the essence of a particular moment in time, but allow viewers to form their own opinion of that moment. That being said, there are many ways of looking at the above picture I took on my first of what will be many trips around the District. Here are two things that come to mind.
The first thing that caught my mind were the two ambulances parked behind the East Entrance to the Capitol. They are facing the building and appear ready to go at moment's notice. The other thing I found incredibly ironic about this scene was that there are two ambulances, which I interpreted as one to take away the Democrats and one to take away the Republicans. With a congressional disapproval in the 80% range, it's not too difficult to see why these vehicles are symbolic of the dangerous situation both parties find themselves in.
Even in general most people disapprove of the government as a whole, which brings us to the Capitol, arguably the strongest image of the American political system. Here again, this picture - like any taken of this iconic building in the coming weeks - provides ironic symbolism. The base of the dome is enclosed by scaffolding as crews preform repairs to its exterior. The repairs taking place here remind me of the necessary repairs our government needs.
In this season of presidential politics, each one of us has the ability to help, to provide some congressional aid. It is in this climate that the members of DC Semester begin their journey within the heart of American politics.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
"This Just In...Hamiltonians visit the Newseum"
Today we had our first class in which one of our discussions centered around we the current Republican nomination situation. Which leads me to share this gem of a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMLlNySviZI. Of course, Democrats have their fair share of gaffs as well, but the current spotlight is on the Republicans meaning entertaining videos of this sort are much easier to find.
Additionally, we had our first excursion as a group to the Newseum. The Newseum is a museum dedicated to all things related to freedom of speech and news (papers, shows, reporters etc). One of the highlights was the 4D adventure in which we all successfully traveled through time surviving the revolutionary war, rats at an insane asylum and some casual bombings during WWII. Go us.
Other highlights included the history of news, first dog exhibit, and the interactive news section. The interactive part had computer games testing ones knowledge of the museum. In the race of rights quiz game, I helped runner "Bill O' Rights" beat the competing runner "Dick Tatorship"....see what they did there?).
Speaking of the puns, the Newseum had a variety of entertaining paraphernalia:
Don't worry, there was also "Democrap Donkey Dung". As always, the news is never biased. Right? (**cough cough Fox News)
lol.
Anything news related...including facebook!
The reward for Lincoln's assassin is the same price as one year of Hamilton tuition now. Obviously not counting inflation and such. Still thought it was mildly entertaining.
And here is a group photo with our self proclaimed "fearless leader":
Additionally, we had our first excursion as a group to the Newseum. The Newseum is a museum dedicated to all things related to freedom of speech and news (papers, shows, reporters etc). One of the highlights was the 4D adventure in which we all successfully traveled through time surviving the revolutionary war, rats at an insane asylum and some casual bombings during WWII. Go us.
Other highlights included the history of news, first dog exhibit, and the interactive news section. The interactive part had computer games testing ones knowledge of the museum. In the race of rights quiz game, I helped runner "Bill O' Rights" beat the competing runner "Dick Tatorship"....see what they did there?).
Speaking of the puns, the Newseum had a variety of entertaining paraphernalia:
Don't worry, there was also "Democrap Donkey Dung". As always, the news is never biased. Right? (**cough cough Fox News)
lol.
Anything news related...including facebook!
The reward for Lincoln's assassin is the same price as one year of Hamilton tuition now. Obviously not counting inflation and such. Still thought it was mildly entertaining. And here is a group photo with our self proclaimed "fearless leader":
Overall it was a great first day of class and field trip. I am looking forward to the groups continued discussions and debates regarding the republican nominations and upcoming elections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
