365.31 (1/31/10)
Information | ||
ARCHIVES
April 2024
January 2024 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 |
By Steven L. Taylor
By Steven L. Taylor
Reynolds also notes the Washington Examiner column on the Tea Party movement cited in my previous post:
Now, I know from Reynold’s work (such as his book Army of Davids) that he has certain theories and preferences regarding the work and wisdom of crowds. However, it is one thing for a group to generically agree on “a crowd-sourced party platform” especially one that is focused on what end up being (as a matter of practical politics and history) platitudes (specifically “limited government” and “fiscal conservatism”). Most people are, to one degree or another (as Reynolds notes), in favor of those things (certainly I would consider myself to be a proponent of both limited government and fiscal conservatism). However, the devil in these issues is very much in the details. And, the working out of such details in the context of a political movement, manifests in things like the “logrolling” that Reynolds seems to hold in contempt in the above paragraphs. Indeed, as I noted the other day, the actual practice of governing in the U.S. is such that the institutional parameters make spending more likely, not less—even if it seems that “people are overwhelmingly in favor of” a specific outcome. It is rarely that easy(indeed, it is never that easy). One thing is for certain in life, and certainly in politics: frustration is easy, governing is hard.1
Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (3)|
By Steven L. Taylor
Glenn Reynolds notes in a Washington Examiner column:
I presume he is referring to the December 2024 NBC/WSJ poll done by Hart/McInturff (a well respected, bipartisan poll) [PDF here] which showed the following:
This sums to a 41% positive and only a 23% negative and 36% neutral/don’t know. Now, this is better than the Republicans and Democrats fare in the poll, to be sure. Specifically, the GOP had a 28% combined very/somewhat positive and the Democrats 35%. As such, it is fair to state that in this poll, the Tea Party movement has better numbers. However, the implications of those numbers are not what Reynolds (or others1 ) claim. One of the reasons that it is difficult to impute serious popularity to the Tea Party movement from this poll (and specifically the question above) is the question that immediately precedes it in the poll:
The percentage of persons in the poll knowing “a great deal/a fair amount” about the movement in question is only 29%, while the percentage knowing “very little/nothing at all” is 48% (which goes to 71% if we include “just some”). As such, it is rather difficult to truly assess the public’s approval/disapproval of the Tea Party movement since the public, on balance, doesn’t have enough information to form an opinion. The real test will be electoral in nature, and at a minimum we will need to see what happens in November to begin to understand what the Tea Party movement is or isn’t. Indeed, unless the Tea Party actually takes its name seriously and starts to run its own candidates, it will be difficult to totally disaggregate the exact effect of Tea Party activists from other variables. I would further note that we have two elections to date that could be said to have been under the influence of the Tea Party movement: the special election in NY23 and the special election in the Massachusetts senate race. Based on that meager data set we have one election in which the Tea Party preferred candidate lost (and indeed, helped to elect the Democrat) and one in which the Tea Party preferred candidate won (i.e., Brown over Coakley). That is not enough to conclude much of anything. Certainly not enough for Reynolds to conclude the following (based on the Brown win):
We shall see. If the Tea Parties are able to have a direct and obvious effect on the process (apart from the aforementioned running of their own candidates) it will be in the primaries (presumably the Republican primaries). However, if they are successful in affecting the type of candidates nominated by the GOP, that may not have the effect on the outcomes that Reynolds (and the Tea Party) prefers. See, for example, NY23.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off|
By Steven L. Taylor
Via the AFP: Colombian police seizes cocaine-stuffed cookies
That’s no sugar high, amigo. This made me think of the following (which also inspired the title):
The relevant part is the clip of the old commercial, which I remember from when I was a kid. The whole concept (“open up a cookie, a Drox filled cookie, open and say “hi Drox!”) was one that I always thought a bit odd, although really the pertinent drug for the creators of those commercials was more likely LSD than cocaine. Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off|
By Steven L. Taylor
By Steven L. Taylor
Via the BBC, Machu Picchu tourist airlift ends with 1,300 flown out:
Pretty much any vacation the includes the word “airlift” is, by definition, not a good one. Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (2)|
By Steven L. Taylor
Via USAT’s OnDeadline: Jet diverted to Florida by ‘no-fly’ scare, but no threat.
The flight originated in Newark, was headed to Bogotá, Colombia and was diverted to Florida. This caught my eye originally because I am flying to Bogotá in about a month (although, thankfully, not out of Newark). The second thought was: isn’t the point of a “no-fly list” that the person on the list isn’t allowed to fly? How does said person end up on the plane and then someone says “Hey! Who let that guy on?” This strikes me as a rather poor procedure. Ends up that there was no threat. While there is certainly a sense to which better safe than sorry and all that, this sounds like a failure (yet again) of the no-fly list (not to mention a process which unnecessarily frightened a plane full of people, as well as seriously inconveniencing them). More from the Morning Call, Newark-to-Bogota flight diverted:
More from NBC New York: Newark Flight Diverted Over No-Fly List Fears. Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off|
By Steven L. Taylor
By Steven L. Taylor
Via Reuters: Pork better for sex than Viagra?
TMI, methinks. If anything, this may be one of the most pandering statements made to an audience in some time. Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (2)|
By Steven L. Taylor
I noted the following over at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government site: Why Is Senator Kirk Still Voting on Legislation? The question follows on from some pre-special election concern that even if Republican Scott Brown won the race (he did, in case you’ve been under a rock) that Democrat Paul Kirk would be able to vote on health care reform before Brown was sworn in. The speculation was centered primarily on a Weekly Standard piece. A health care reform vote is no longer an issue. Still, the author of the Big Government piece is quite concerned:
Now, what strikes me about this piece is that it is representative of an especially poor (yet increasingly common) type of political “analysis” insofar as all it does is take two partisan sources and then reaches rather extreme (and outraged!) conclusions. The problem, of course, is that just because a GOP lawyer reaches a conclusion about how the process works, doesn’t make it so. I would note, that the GOPness isn’t the relevant part so much as the fact that he is just some lawyer whose conclusions, oddly enough, have no binding legal authority. The piece also seeks to make an argument based on a 1939 Senate committee ruling on a specific special election in 1939 (see here). However, in looking back to the most recent example of a special election that led to a change in control of a seat, we see the seat remaining under the control of the appointee until the new Senator is sworn in. To wit: back in 2024 Jim Talent defeated Jean Carnahan to finish the term of Carnahan’s late husband, Mel. Talent defeated Carnahan on November 5, 2024. Carnahan remained in the seat until November 25, 2024, when Talent assumed the seat. It ends up that Brown’s swearing-in is scheduled for February 11th, and that the Senator-elect appears more than content with said date (if, for example, sitting for interviews with Jay Leno and Barbara Walters are any indication). Given that Massachusetts appears unready to certify Brown’s win, it is hardly surprising that the Senator occupying the seat is remaining there so as to allow the state uninterrupted representation in the Senate. As such, move along: no real outrage to see here. Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (5)|
|
blog advertising is good for you Visitors Since 2/15/03
|
Powered by WordPress