Rossputin.com: Rational Thinking About Our World

PUBLISHED at RealClearPolitics.com:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/iowa_new_hampshire_losing_prim.html

Historically, the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary have received the perception of being, if not president-makers, at least highly reliable launching points for presidential aspirants.

Indeed, these early contests correctly predicted the final choice of nominee five out of seven times for each party. Iowans’ views were not shared by the rest of the country on the Democratic side in 1992 (Tom Harkin won) and 1988 (Dick Gephardt), and on the Republican side in 1988 (Bob Dole) and 1980 (George H.W. Bush). New Hampshire didn’t create a victor on the Democratic side in 1992 (Paul Tsongas) and 1984 (Gary Hart), and on the Republican side in 2000 (John McCain) and 1996 (Pat Buchanan).

And while batting over .700 is impressive, there are strong reasons to question whether these initial matchups are now as important or reliable indicators as they used to be.

Notice is being taken of Mitt Romney’s lead over Rudy Giuliani in these two states. Looking at the trend of Iowa poll averages from RealClearPolitics.com, two things are clear. Mitt Romney is picking up the majority of the support that John McCain is losing. And Rudy Giuliani’s support dropped in every poll taken after his early June announcement that he would not participate in the Iowa Straw Poll. Romney now shows a commanding 13-point lead in the RCP average with recent polls having an even wider margin. It is not unreasonable to assume that even if Rudy makes a serious effort in Iowa he may not be able to overcome this gap.

In New Hampshire, the RCP averages show Romney with about a 10 point lead, but leaving out one apparent poll outlier (showing Giuliani up by 1 percent), that number would be closer to 13%. The modest difference between New Hampshire and Iowa polling trends is that while Iowa shows Romney’s lead continuing to widen in recent weeks, in New Hampshire the gap has been fairly steady, with both Romney and Giuliani gaining support from former McCain voters.

Again, I do not assume that Giuliani can close this gap. Indeed, I am far from convinced that he will or should try hard to do so. Certainly, running radio ads about a border fence, as he’s doing in both states, hardly seems like putting your best foot forward, especially since there were some notable GOP congressional casualties last year who ran primarily on immigration.

What is so different this time versus prior election cycles? The race by other (bigger) states to get near the front of the primary season starting line. The benefit historically offered by winning the mid-January contests in Iowa and New Hampshire was the momentum gained in the roughly 6-8 weeks until the next important group of primaries on Super Tuesday in March.

If you roll a ball down a 20-foot hill, it will be going much more slowly at the bottom than if you had rolled it down a 100-foot hill. And that’s exactly what’s being done to the New Hampshire and Iowa momentum by the dramatic moves of Florida, California, Illinois, New York, and others to move their primaries up. Michigan is proposing January 15th, just one day after the currently scheduled date for the Iowa Caucus and a week before New Hampshire’s primary. South Carolina has scheduled its primary for January 19th, again before New Hampshire’s. And just yesterday, Wyoming Republicans announced that they are moving their caucus to January 5th.

New Hampshire and Iowa will respond by moving their contests up, but when the reshuffling has finished the time between the two historically earliest contests and the rest of the pack will have been compressed dramatically. Even if Mitt Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire, those victories may not translate into momentum, at least not unless he already has some momentum in other more important states.

Looking at the polling data from some of the other important and probably-early states (are they all probably early now?), Giuliani shows a substantial lead over Romney in South Carolina, Florida, California, and New Jersey, and a small lead in Michigan in the head-to-head race. (Fred Thompson shows good support in Michigan and South Carolina, although my guess is that Thompson’s campaign may already be stalling out beyond recovery.)

As I expect Romney to have very limited ability to turn victories in Iowa and New Hampshire into momentum in these other states in the very short time between primaries, Rudy Giuliani’s apparent strategy of focusing on the larger states and not worrying about Romney’s lead in the presumptive first two contests makes a lot of sense. Today, even with Romney’s clear advantage in Iowa and New Hampshire, the change in the structure of the primary season has made it very difficult to expect that the current betting lines, having Rudy about 15% higher than Romney to be the eventual nominee, will be wrong.

Putting aside the nuts and bolts of primaries and probabilities, even the perception of a resurgent Romney is a good thing for the GOP and the country. Whether you’re supporting him or not, Romney’s campaign platform is basically one of low taxes and limited government much like Rudy Giuliani’s. We see Senators Obama and Edwards pushing Hillary Clinton to the left by supporting health care socialism and the repeatedly-failed soak-the-rich economic policies of days we remember with little fondness. The debate among the Republican front-runners (“I’m a truer tax cutter than you are!”) will force the candidates to the “fiscal right”, not only focusing the American public’s view on the historic and current value of low tax rates, but further highlighting just how much of Americans’ money each of the Democratic candidates wants to take.

I do not believe that likely Romney wins in Iowa and New Hampshire will translate into his beating Rudy Giuliani for the Republican presidential nomination but I’m very glad to have him make a real impact on the race.

Politico.com is reporting that Fred Thompson will officially announce his candidacy for president next Thursday, September 6th.

Here's the link:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0807/Thompson_announcement_date_likely_to_come_today.html

On this second anniversary (yesterday, actually) of Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast, Larry Kudlow has written a fantastic piece about the federal boondoggle that is "reconstruction" of New Orleans following the disaster. It never ceases to amaze me that despite failure after failure of the federal government, not only do people keep relying on Big Brother but they keep being surprised when they're disappointed by the results.

Larry's article:
The Big Easy's Billion Dollar Boondoggle, Lawrence Kudlow, 8/3/07
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/the_big_easys_billion_dollar_b.html

I had the opportunity to appear on Jon Caldara's television show "Independent Thinking" in an episode that aired last Friday and again Sunday, the subject of which was the state of political blogging in the US and Colorado. If I can find a way to get the episode online, I'll do so and post that info on these pages.

A view emailed a note to Jon about the show, which I would like to share with you followed by response to her. I understand some of the context is missing if you haven't seen the show, but I think the notes are fairly self-explanatory. First, her comments:

I'm currently watching your telecast on PBS today (Sunday August 26, 2007). I cannot believe you have a group complaining about "vicious" comments on internet Blogs and blaming the "left."

At the ripe age of 41, I have NEVER in my life seen more venom and hatred in comments than I have over the past 8 years (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, Ann Coulter, etc.) AND coming from the "religious" right. Those comments have never seemed very Christian to me.

Believe it or not, I am a rather "centered" person, in politics. I am the wife of a career active duty military man, I voted for Bush in 2004 (something I've regretted ever since), and I voted for Ritter in 2006. I watch your show most Sundays.

It is obvious to me that your program is so skewed as to twist the current political climate away from the utter failures of the current administration and actually have the nerve to WHINE about internet blogs against the Republican party.

I'm sorry, but the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld keystone cops have done the Republican Party in. Don't worry though, our political system is so screwed up that the Democrats will eventually screw up too and you'll be able to CROW from the perch again someday. In the meantime...shut up and color.

I will have a difficult time taking your program seriously again.

And now my response:

Dear Ms. XXXXX,

Thanks for responding regarding the show. I'd like to take a moment to respond to you since you've taken the time to write to me.

First, I don't believe I was "complaining" about "vicious comments", just remarking on their existence, and their excessive prevalence on left-leaning sites versus more conservative sites. I also wasn't "whining" as I find their rhetoric fairly amusing and I believe it lessens their effectiveness so I hope they keep on doing what they're doing. Indeed, I said on the show that I did not think they would have an easy time changing anybody's mind because of the nature of their rhetoric, and since changing minds is the name of the game, I certainly wouldn't be whining or complaining about them.

Second, you may think that you hear venom and hatred in Limbaugh and O'Reilly, but that implies to me that you simply haven't read many political blogs, especially left-leaning blogs which allow nearly unmoderated commentary.

Third, I do not consider myself a conservative, and believe I made that clear on the show. I am, for example, no fan at all of Ann Coulter, nor do I have any use for the religious right as I am a not-particularly-observant Jew who thinks that religion and government should stay far apart from each other. I am pro-choice and for drug legalization (although I have never touched an illegal drug or even a cigarette in my whole life). I am for a strong foreign policy and for limiting government (federal government in particular) to what it is constitutionally authorized to do. I am passionate about liberty and believe it is liberty which has made our country great. I believe that the GOP has done tremendous damage to liberty in the past few years, but I also believe that they may be reformable whereas the Democrats will always be about bigger, more intrusive, and more expensive government. I wrote on my blog that I was glad the GOP got trounced in the last election because at least there's a chance it will focus them on returning to the principles of liberty and limited government. So please don't accuse me of being "skewed" except to the extent that I skew away from authoritarianism, high taxes, over-regulation, and corruption no matter what the source.

Both of my parents served in the US Navy. Although we didn't talk a lot of politics when I grew up, the subtext was always "live and let live", and therefore when I ran across both objectivism and libertarianism, they both struck deep chords with me in terms of relating well to how I already thought, not giving me a new set of beliefs. (To be clear, I disagree with the Libertarian party on enough issues that I usually end up voting for some Libertarians and some Republicans.) For the record, while you're accusing me of being some sort of Republican partisan hack, I will have you know that I NEVER voted for George W. Bush.

Fourth, did you EVER hear me or anyone else on the show stand up for Republicans or cheer Bush, Cheney, or any other member of the administration? I'm not sure about Brad Jones, but I know that Caldara and I are far from "good Republicans", and if you would read my blog and Jon's writings you would see that we both criticize Republicans mercilessly, especially in recent years when they have been such a disaster. Yes, I criticize Democrats more than Republicans, but I think they're wrong more than Republicans and my site does not pretend to be anything other than my opinion and analysis. As for me or Jon crowing, neither of us will do so if Republicans win unless they win on a platform of returning to the first principles of liberty and then work to actually enact those principles. This is about good government, not about cheering for a particular team.

I think you were reading far more into the show than we were saying. We were talking about political blogs, and only political blogs. Of course we didn't say a lot of very positive stuff about left-leaning blogs (simply because we believe they are wrong almost all the time), but not because we are partisan Republicans which we most certainly are not. I think that if you re-watch the show, or even just reconsider what you saw, and realize that 1) the discussion was ONLY about blogging, 2) you didn't hear anybody say anything good about the Republican Party...in fact I don't even recall the word "Republican" being uttered though I may have missed it, and 3) you can verify for yourself what I was saying about comments on left-leaning sites versus libertarian or conservative sites, I think you may reconsider your harsh judgment of what we had to say.

And finally, I applaud you for homeschooling.

[This article is far from politically correct...]

Part of me really doesn't want to write about Senator Larry Craig, in part because everyone else is. But it's just too tempting.

So, Craig "denies being gay". It reminds me of an old joke complaint from an in-the-closet homosexual: "You give just one blow job and suddenly everyone thinks you're gay!"

[Let me be clear here: I don't care what someone's sexual tastes are as long as the activities are confined to consenting adults. As a good friend of mine says about gays, "just close the door and don't scare the children." I do care, at least a little, when people moralize against gay sex, drugs, or Barbra Streisand movies and proceed to partake of them themselves. I have no use for hypocrites. I'll respect Barney Frank over Larry Craig any day of the week (as long as we're not talking about tax policy). Again, let me be very clear: I don't care if people engage in whatever adult-only sexual exploits they choose, nor do I care if people use drugs in the privacy of their own homes. I do not, however, forgive people who intentionally watch Barbra Streisand movies.]

In any case, if Craig's not gay, he appears at least to be very willing to learn.

It's most likely, just as with Mark Foley, that long-term suspicions about a politician being gay (or willing to learn) probably have some basis in reality.

What's your guess, readers, on how long until Larry Craig resigns from the Senate? I'll say September 19th, although I also thought Gonzales would resign much sooner than he did.

The whole thing is a mess. Why can't Republicans stop acting so stupidly, or at least stop getting caught? Yes, there is a difference in public perception between Republicans being gay and Democrats being gay. If a Democrat were caught doing what Craig seems to have been doing, he would probably get a hearty pat on the back for his appreciation of diversity...of sexual appetites and locations. After all, look at Gerry Studds. He got re-elected after having gay sex with a 17-year old page. But just because there is a double standard doesn't make Craig's actions or situations any better. Indeed, it's worse simply because he has to know there is that double standard, i.e. there are standards for Republican behavior where there are few or none for Democrats. (Can you say "Chappaquiddick"?)

I must say that one thing in this story made me and several friends laugh out loud: From the article on The Nation's web site, in response to questioning why his foot slid under the divider between his bathroom stall and the next, touching the foot of the undercover cop in the next stall,

Craig stated "that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine," the report states. Craig also told the arresting officer that he reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper that was on the floor.

"It should be noted that there was not a piece of paper on the bathroom floor, nor did Craig pick up a piece of paper," the arresting officer said in the report.

I guarantee you that will be the source of jokes for years to come..."I have a wide stance". By the way, a friend of mine said he actually tried a wide stance and concluded that "it can't be done while sitting on the john with pants around your ankles" Yep, this will keep us laughing for quite some time.

You can read the entirety of the police report on this other blog or in the Nation article linked above, and it's quite entertaining:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/08/larry-craig-caught-in-act-in-public.html

Well, Senator Craig, I suppose we'll be seeing you after you do the Ted Haggard thing, start therapy, move to another state, and proclaim in public that you're praying in private for forgiveness.

As far as I'm concerned, the sooner we're rid of you the better, and not because you're gay, but because you're a hypocritical moronic embarrassment to the Senate. I'd almost rather have a Barbra Streisand watcher than you...almost.

While watching the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the obvious question is “What took so long?” Gonzales seemed like a nice enough guy, but was yet another obvious example of President Bush’s letting loyalty trump competence on a stage where such a tradeoff is not only bad for the country, but also bad politics.

Whether with FEMA head Mike Brown or with the disastrous Harriet Miers episode, President Bush has too often acted as if he were choosing friends for his kickball team rather than running the world’s only superpower.

And there is no doubt that Gonzales repaid Bush’s loyalty in kind, taking a rhetorical beating from Democrats and Republicans alike as he tried to wend his way through the maze of defending anti-terrorism surveillance programs and explaining the US Attorney firings controversy.

While the surveillance programs are tricky territory for anyone to explain, especially anyone charged with protecting and defending the constitution, Gonzales’ downfall was his absolutely inept management of the US Attorney situation.

His story changed repeatedly and, depending on whether you were inclined favorably toward Gonzales or not, it was unavoidable to conclude that he either had too bad a memory to have such an important job or that he was simply lying. It was no accident that Republicans from the liberal Arlen Specter to conservative Tom Coburn abandoned Gonzales.

It has been argued that Gonzales should not resign because it would create an opening through which opponents of all things related to President Bush might try to attack the administration. Patrick Leahy and John Conyers are perfect examples: Their only reason for existence seems to be to attempt to subpoena White House staff in a silly game of political “gotcha”…which Leahy never seems to win but is too set in his ways and too partisan to stop playing. Some also argue that a Gonzales resignation would let Leahy and friends say there’s now a smoking gun that something illegal was done. My guess regarding both the surveillance and US attorney situations is that nothing illegal was done, but both were handled poorly.

Gonzales concerned me early on while, as White House counsel, he repeatedly advised the Administration that massive expansion of executive power was legal and constitutional. Basically, he functioned as a rubber stamp for what some people describe as an “imperial presidency”. If after being made Attorney General Gonzales continued to give that sort of advice to the president, and there’s no reason to believe he would change, it is not surprising that President Bush would feel much safer than he should have in implementing a wider range of surveillance programs, skirting FISA (I realize this is a widely debated question), and informing Congress minimally. If you believe these things were done incorrectly or with little regard for the rule of law, our system of checks and balances, or civil liberties, the fault lies with Bush to the extent that he chose and relied on Gonzales as his AG, but primarily with Gonzales who acted as little more than a “Yes Man” for the administrations policy desires.

To be clear, I believe that at least what I know of the surveillance programs, i.e. that they target conversations where at least one participant is outside the US and where there is reason to suspect terrorist connections, are probably both desirable and constitutional. As for the US Attorney firings, unless they were fired to prevent prosecutions of Republicans, something I strongly doubt in part because if that were the case I’m sure mainstream media would be trumpeting it from every rooftop, the bottom line is that they could have been fired, all or just some, at any time for any other reason. They are political appointees, period. And that is all Bush and Gonzales should have said about it when the issue arose. Trying to tap dance around the firings lead Gonzales into a morass of contradictions that was entirely unnecessary and ultimately fatal to his tenure in office.

So I don’t buy the arguments that Gonzales should have stayed, basically to act as a shield for the administration. I think he put a giant target on the administration and that his departure is as good news politically as was the replacement of Donald Rumsfeld.

I do not know how long it will take for President Bush to learn once and for all that he must appoint competence over old friendships. It appeared he has at least considered that by his choice of Robert Gates to succeed Rumsfeld. Bush would be well advised to stay on that track when working to replace Gonzales.

Some of the early talk mentions moving current Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff from his current post to be the new Attorney General. This would be a decision of questionable wisdom despite Chertoff’s more than acceptable qualifications to be AG, including having been a federal prosecutor and a judge. Fairly or not, Chertoff still has a slight negative perception around him following the federal government’s handling of Hurricane Katrina. He also was a point man for the administration in pushing the recently-killed Senate Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill, a bill which was hugely unpopular among Republicans, and hardly more popular among Democrats. If supporting a particular bill could effectively end the presidential aspirations of John McCain, it couldn’t be a good think for Chertoff either, especially as the job of Attorney General is a position with tremendous responsibility for implementing immigration policy.

President Bush should reach outside his current staff and cabinet (or at least outside anyone with a substantial current public presence) and bring in a new face with no real controversy around him. Of course, the Democrats will try to attack any new nominee, but if the nominee is of high enough quality it will simply serve to make Patrick Leahy and friends look as silly as they deserve to look.

One of the reasons Republicans got so thoroughly trounced in the last election was a perception of incompetence in the administration. The best thing President Bush could do now is to use Alberto Gonzales’ departure as an opportunity to raise the actual and perceived level of talent surrounding him. Between that and finding his veto pen when the massive piles of pork start arriving from Congress soon, the President could justifiably increase his approval ratings among Americans and reduce the chances that the next election will be a reprise of the last.

Upon hearing of the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, my first reaction was "it's about time".

Gonzales functioned as a "yes man" for an administration that worked far too hard to expand executive power at the expense of the delicate balance of our system of government.

He was incompetent, and was just another in a line of appointments made out of friendship rather than professionalism, such as Mike Brown and the ridiculous attempt to nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

While some of the current talk about a replacement centers around Michael Chertoff, I hope Bush reaches outside the current administration and staff to someone whose appointment will signal, much like the appointment of Secretary of Defense Gates, a focus on competency and professionalism.

re "Bill to insure all Coloradans: $26 billion" (Aspen Times, 8/25/07)
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/200770823007

To the Editor:

Proposals coming from or reviewed by the Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care are nothing short of economic and medical insanity. So many of the arguments and assumptions are fundamentally flawed that it is hard to believe Coloradans would be stupid enough to support any of the proposals, but a majority was gullible enough to support Referendum C that I suppose anything is possible.

The first major incorrect assumption is that any Coloradans do not have "access to health insurance". Everyone does, and the state already has CoverColorado, a program for people who get denied from standard commercial carriers. Second, most people who do not have health insurance are either simply in between jobs and likely to have it again within a few months or else they are already eligible for government insurance if they chose to sign up. Then there's a small percentage of the uninsured who are simply young and healthy and rationally choose not to spend their money on health insurance. Almost every uninsured person in the state could be insured if they chose to without changing the current system.

Another set of major errors comes from believing that having government-run health care will either control costs or maintain quality. All the evidence from places that have socialized medicine is that costs spiral out of control, quality plummets, and both patients and doctors are deeply unsatisfied with the system. There's a reason that a person diagnosed with cancer in the US has a much better chance of living for 5 years than a person diagnosed with cancer in England, France, Canada, or any other place with socialized medicine. In addition to our much higher survival rates, we do not have the sort of rationing that those places have had to implement in order to keep the system from completely bankrupting the country. The Canadian Supreme Court recently ruled in a case that access to a waiting list is not the same as access to health care, and allowed people to buy private insurance and see private doctors. But the Canadians (and Europeans) who can afford it come to the US for their care. That's no accident.

To the extent that we believe health insurance is too expensive, the causes are two: a lack of competition among health insurance policy providers (primarily because of laws preventing competition across state lines and because of laws requiring coverages that people don't actually want) and the way the current system keeps health care consumers from feeling enough cost when they go to doctors and hospitals. If you subsidize something, people will use too much of it. If that something is important and you over-stress the system's capacity the results can be disastrous. Just ask someone with prostate cancer in England (twice as likely to die within 5 years as someone with the same diagnosis here.)

We should learn from the lessons of Referendum C that no tax increase is ever enough for big-government liberals, and that no promise they make that "this is all we need" should ever be taken seriously. But the cost of Ref C will be invisible compared to the cost of socialized medicine. Not only will the cost of medicine skyrocket, but quality will decline as top-notch physicians leave the state. Between the reputation the state will get for sub-standard medical care and the insane tax burden required for socialized medicine, it will no longer be a desirable place to work or to start a company. Current residents and businesses will flee the state, especially healthy and productive people. Poor and unhealthy people will move here for their "free lunch" health care, leaving the legislature with a tax revenue "shortfall" for which they will then come to the remaining people for a tax increase.

"Universal coverage" is a pleasant-sounding euphemism for socialized medicine. It will be an expensive disaster for the state, and I hope the prospect causes Colorado voters to make smarter decisions than they did in the last election.

[Links on commodity names will show monthly price charts.]

Despite massive wheat harvests in Colorado which are leaving "mountains of wheat standing idle", world wheat prices have hit record levels with the December '07 Wheat future closing at $7.37 per bushel yesterday. For perspective, wheat was already "expensive" by historical standards at $5 just three months ago and until a couple of spikes in 2006 had only traded above $4 for two fairly brief periods between 1998 and 2006.

Soybean prices have followed a pattern similar to wheat, although they are not at 10-year highs because of the massive price spike they had in 2004.

Corn prices, while well off their highs, are still about 50% higher than their typical price range for most of the past 8 years prior to 2006.

(Part of the reason that wheat prices have recently kept climbing while corn leveled off is that corn prices started climbing first so farmers lessened their wheat (and soybean) plantings in order to plant the then-more-expensive corn. Once it became clear that that caused a higher than expected corn supply and lower than expected wheat and soybean supply, so corn prices stopped going up and wheat and soybean prices increased dramatically.]

This BBC news story explains part of the world wheat situation and why prices are rising:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6962211.stm

Since I don't have time for a very long article today, let me make my point briefly:

Most of the wildness in grain markets is caused by our irrational ethanol policy, which is little more than politicians using corn to buy votes in farm states. Ethanol is not nearly as "green" as they want you to believe, and we could get better sugar cane ethanol from Brazil if we didn't slap such high tariffs on it. Ethanol is not efficient in terms of miles per gallon, nor efficient to produce as you have to use a lot of fossil fuels to plant, harvest, and transport it. It's a boondoggle and a massive transfer of taxpayer wealth from urban areas to farms, by which I mostly mean large farming corporations.

Beyond that, the spike in grain prices then translates into spikes in meat and dairy prices, since the grain is what feeds the animals. Our ethanol policy is the single biggest culprit in the serious level of inflation in food prices.

It's time for a revolt against ethanol. Let's wipe that silly grin of Charles Grassley's face as he counts all the dollars he's stealing from all of us for a few farmers in Iowa.

On Tuesday, a couple of local radio talk show guys were discussing the recent move by some Colorado school districts to start the school year a week or ten days earlier, presumably to increase standardized test scores.

I wrote a note to the talk show, which follows, but then also happened to see the following interesting article which says that 25% of Americans read no books last year:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070821/ap_on_re_us/reading_habits_ap_poll

It struck me that this sort of news is another reason it's not surprising to see American K-12 educational performance lag behind other countries (not that I know whether people elsewhere read more.)

Digging into the details of the above article, I note that a significant percentage of the people who do read are older, i.e. too old to be involved with the education of a young person. Furthermore, and to no surprise, a large percentage of those who read no books in the past year are "less educated, lower income, minorities..." In other words, the people whose children are doing worst by educational measurement standards are apparently completely unable or unwilling to be of any help in their children's education, or even in their children's interest in learning.

This fits in nicely to the point I had made to the radio guys even before finding the reading news:

Hi guys,

I would suggest that just as increased expenditures on public education have not helped improve outcomes, more months in school won't either.

The problem with our children's educational performance has to do more than anything with the lack of involvement with parents. It's much more about our culture and the kids' home environment than about anything a school can do.

Also, there's a lot more to life, especially for a child, than being inside a building. Childhood is for learning all sorts of things, not just things in books. It's also for play and just enjoying life. Making school years longer not only won't help kids' test scores, but it will also harm the beauty of childhood.

PUBLISHED on the Rocky Mountain News online blog:
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/08/bob_schaffer.html#more

re "Schaffer denies conflict in Denver charter school vote" (Rocky Mountain News, 8/21)
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5678410,00.html

The tempest in a teapot about Bob Schaffer’s vote on a charter school issue demonstrates how desperate Democrats and teachers’ unions are to denigrate him…and how they can find nothing substantive with which to attack him.

Does anybody doubt that Schaffer, a long-time strong supporter of charter schools and competition in education, would generally oppose efforts to kill charter schools? To be clear, the vote in question was not on the charter school contract, but simply to require Denver Public Schools to reconsider their original determination to close the charter school. And if the vote was so questionable, why did it pass, given that Schaffer was just one of 7 votes?

Far more questionable than Schaffer’s vote are the anti-charter school votes of members of the Board of Education who were either members of the DPS Board (such as former DPS President Elaine Berman) or who received campaign contributions from teachers unions and other public school establishment organizations. If any vote seems corrupt, it is those votes.

The Rocky does itself and its readers no favors by letting itself be used by a partisan web site to attack Bob Schaffer instead of doing quality reporting and asking the important questions.

-------------------

Following is a longer version of this note which I posted on another web site:

The Rocky Mountain News has demonstrated a lazy willingness to let themselves be used by a partisan web site instead of doing their own homework and asking important questions.

So let me make or emphasize a few points that they're too indolent to come up with or highlight themselves:

The vote in question was not on the charter school contract, but simply to send the matter back to Denver Public Schools for reconsideration.

Does anyone think that Schaffer would have voted the other way regardless of his candidacy for the Senate? He has been a tireless supporter of charter schools and competition in education. The idea that he might have voted against a charter school in the absence of damning evidence against the school is preposterous.

The vote was 4-3. If it was so egregious, how did 3 other members (including at least one liberal) vote with Schaffer?

What about the "no" votes from members of the Board of Education who are affiliated with DPS or teachers' unions, including Elaine Berman, former President of DPS? The CEA and the CO Assoc. of School Executives can and do contribute to candidates. How about a newspaper telling us which of the "no" voters get money from the public school establishment which opposes the competition posed by charter schools?

Brennan has been a contributor to Schaffer for at least a few years before this vote. And why shouldn't he be? Brennan is a nationally-known leader in the school choice movement, and spends his own money (in addition to trying to make money, which is no sin) in trying to bring better educational opportunities to those whom public schools fail most. Schaffer also believes that the public school system needs massive reform and the discipline of competition. So, it is not surprising that Brennan has contributed to Schaffer. Indeed it would be surprising if he didn't.

And finally, I would note that all this mudslinging against Schaffer is lightly coated with words like "potential". It's a "potential" conflict of interest. What outrageous behavior by a major newspaper to let a partisan hack feed non-stories to its reporters. A "potential" conflict of interest is a non-story but a useful tool in dirty politics. I understand that politics is frequently dirty, but newspapers should be much more careful not to be so obviously used for partisan attacks.

PUBLISHED in the Denver Post, 8/21/07
http://www.denverpost.com/letters/ci_6681024

re "Ruling should clear up conflicts on smoking ban" (Denver Post editorial, 8/19/07)
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_6665532

The fundamental problem around the smoking ban debate is demonstrated unwittingly in your editorial on the subject. You say that the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act bans smoking “in most indoor public places”. But a restaurant, bar, or casino is no more a “public” place than is my office or even my home. They are private properties, the owners of which should have the right to permit or prohibit any legal activity as they decide best suits their business strategy, their personal moral code, or any other basis upon which they make such decisions.

Secondly, you mention “involuntary exposure” to secondhand smoke, by which I presume you mean someone who goes to a restaurant or bar and breathes in smoke from another patron’s cigarette. But such exposure pushes the limits of the word “involuntary” since nobody has forced the person into the restaurant or bar at gunpoint, and certainly nobody is keeping him there once he learns that there may be smoke present.

As someone who despises smoking, I am pleased with the effect of the smoking ban, but I oppose it nonetheless. Private property rights are more important than the wishes of a bunch of do-gooders, even if they are a majority. What’s next, government banning trans-fats? Naah, Big Nanny would never go that far, would they?

I recently received a mass email from Colorado State Senator Ken Gordon. He's a Democrat who ran for and (luckily for us) lost the race to be Colorado's Secretary of State. Among his many bad ideas included splitting our electoral vote based on the results of the popular vote, a direct attack on the system which our Founders wisely implemented for a reason. In any case, he mentioned that he was considering "legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions". Following is my response to him:

Senator Gordon,

Let me say up front that you and I disagree on pretty much everything other than social issues...I'm basically libertarian, although registered Republican. (I promise to keep it clean, as you ask.)

While I think you're wrong about Iraq, it is at least a debate that can be had honestly.

However, the "greenhouse gas" issue and current global warming hype is one that seems never to be debated honestly by those on the Al Gore side of things. Available science does not justify the massive and immediate costs to society that the anti-development, anti-liberty crowd, posing as environmentalists, want us to accept. And a very big percentage of the new science coming out is disproving old studies which have been used to scare people.

A few points I'd make to you:

* It appears that CO2 levels lag, not lead, temperature changes.
* It seems highly likely that most of the variance in temperature comes from changes in solar activity, not something we can control.
* A very recent study in Greenland showed that even when the earth was MUCH warmer than it is now, the ice sheets there remained much thicker than anticipated, so any sea level rise one might have guessed from melting ice would have been massively overestimated.
* There is no reason to assume that normal cycles of temperature change (or even somewhat abnormal) must be harmful. For example, if you assume warming, clearly, if you are in a very low-lying area near the ocean and sea levels rise, you might have to move. But if you live in Siberia or northern areas of Canada, you may find yourself able to produce much more food for yourself and the rest of the world than you could before, and you may find areas become habitable that previously weren't. Generally, the global warming alarmists completely ignore how adaptable people are...not only people, but animals as well if that's a concern of yours.
* We have been through these scares before, most recently with a global cooling panic in the 70s, and they've always been wrong.
* China has already passed the US as the largest producer of greenhouse gases, and India is coming up fast. Furthermore, there are a lot of sources of greenhouse gases that are not anthropogenic. So even if the US massively cut its human-caused greenhouse gas output, it would make only the tiniest dent in the total atmospheric concentration, almost certainly not enough to make any difference of any sort, and absolutely certainly at an unjustifiable cost to our economy, employment, and standards of living.

Global warming alarmism is a great issue for the left because it can be made very frightening to people who don't read or understand the actual science. It lets the left raise money and win Academy Awards. But it is a farce...unfortunately one with very dangerous consequences to all of us if politicians try to implement laws to deal with the non-problem.

I encourage you in the strongest way to do some serious reading, including reading some global warming skeptics, about the issue before you try to change laws in a way which will make Colorado a far less desirable place to live.

Here are a few articles and resources for you, if you're willing to take the time to do a little reading:

Note, the first link below contains a series of links to a series of articles about "The Deniers". It's quite good reading and should cause you to reconsider the views you currently hold, at least if you still have an open mind about it (which many liberals seem not to.)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&k=29751
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=267750744226033
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291071,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1187582400&en=b774d5bf299a4ec0&ei=5070
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010098

I truly hope you will look at this issue with an open mind, because blinders on this issue can cause more damage to the state and the country than just about any other issue I can think of.

Regards,
Ross K

Thursday's editorial in the Colorado Springs Gazette called "Grab your wallet" should be required reading for anyone allowed to vote in the state:

see "Grab your wallets
2008 could be banner year for tax raisers"
http://www.gazette.com/opinion/tax_26069___article.html/state_one.html

A reader sent me a question, in response to my article about Rudy Giuliani, about health insurance. Following is his question and then my response:

Hello,
Thank you for making your well articulated analysis and commentary available to the general public. I am hoping you might be able to elaborate on this statement:

Giuliani is correctly on board with President Bush’s proposal to modify the tax code as a first step away from forcing health insurance coverage to go through employers and to begin returning to a system of personal responsibility.

Do you feel that the majority of Americans would some how be able to afford healthcare coverage without the aid of their employers?

Yes, I do believe that is the case.

First of all, the proposal is not to eliminate the deductibility of health insurance payments that employers make but simply to add a parallel tax benefit for individuals. Note that if an employer is not paying for someone's insurance, he can pay a higher salary. The employer cares about total compensation costs, not just how much salary he's paying to the employee.

Second, the insurance market must be reformed so that insurance companies can compete across state lines. This would make a huge difference in quality and price.

Third, regulations on insurance must be changed so that policies are not forced to include coverages (such as mental health) that the insurance purchasers don't want and which just serve to increase the cost.

Fourth, groups of people must be allowed to get together and buy with the power that groups bring, even if they're not all employees of the same company or otherwise professionally associated.

Fifth, and maybe most importantly, we must push the use of Health Savings Accounts so that consumers of health care have a somewhat higher cost to use medical care and the incentive that if they don't go to the doctor for something they really don't need to go for, they get to save/keep that money.

All of these things will bring competition and discipline to the insurance market. It will cause the creation of better and cheaper insurance policies, more self-reliance, and generally a system that is less socialist and self-destructive than our current health care funding system.

Thanks for reading and writing,
Ross

The leader of the Republicans in the House of Representative, John Boenher of Ohio, wrote an article for Townhall.com in which he describes what the GOP will do to "earn the majority" back. It's worth a read, as is my note to him:

Dear Congressman Boehner,

I applaud your effort to get the GOP back on the track of responsibility, especially fiscal responsibility.

Karl Rove was wrong to ignore the fiscal conservative base of the party and focus only on the religious right. Personally, I have stopped giving money to the NRCC or the NRSC as long as people like Don Young, Jerry Lewis, and even Tom Cole still have substantial influence within the Party. Any Republican who argues that spending was not a major reason that the GOP got trounced in the last election is either an idiot or corrupt or both, and I urge you to make a public showing of stripping them of influence, particularly in the case of Don Young.

I was actually not disappointed to see the GOP do so badly in the last election because absolute power had clearly gone to your heads. I know the Democrats are and always will be horrible, but the GOP was acting no better. Maybe some time in the wilderness will encourage you to get back on track, as you seem to be describing now.

On a separate note, I would suggest that you do not spend resources to defend Doug Lamborn in CO-5. There's a very good chance he'll lose in the Republican primary...hopefully to Jeff Crank, who is a better man than Lamborn could ever hope to be.

Best regards,
Ross K

re "Dems hedging on U.S. troops in Iraq" (Denver Post/NY Times, 8/11/07)
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_6602932?

[This was run by the Denver Post on their letters web site at:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2007/08/14/democrats-war-support/]

Isn't it amazing to see Democrats continue through history only supporting military action under the condition that we have no national security interest at stake? They oppose military action in Iraq except if it's to protect Iraqis from other Iraqis. What about protecting Americans? Isn’t that what our military is for? And then there's John Edwards' wanting to protect other countries from becoming involved in a civil war. Is it my imagination or does the definition of civil war preclude it being international?

From Bosnia to Somalia, Democrats only support using military force for "feel-good" operations and from World War I until now they oppose using the military to defend our national security. (Yes, there are and have been plenty of Republican isolationists as well, but at least they don't argue to use the military in situations where we shouldn’t.)

The Democrats are so afraid of the anti-American fringe of their base that they step all over themselves to avoid having to take a strong position in defense of our nation. Yet they will risk our blood and treasure to defend a Sunni from a Shi’ite or a Bosnian from a Croatian. It is this sort of complete misunderstanding of the proper role of our military that will likely cost them the next presidential election.

[Note: A shorter version of this article was published on RealClearPolitics.com:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/rudy_meets_expectations.html]

I had the opportunity to attend a meet-and-greet fundraising event with Rudy Giuliani last week. I went into it with high expectations and was not disappointed: the Mayor was intelligent, funny, very much on top of the issues, and very engaged and engaging with the room.

Let me be clear: I was at this event as a supporter and a past and future contributor, and not as “press”. The campaign did not ask me to write about the event, and I’m not at all certain they want me to…but as Rudy would be the first to agree, it’s a free country (though getting less free every year).

Giuliani took a few minutes giving prepared remarks to the crowd of about 40 people, but quickly moved to taking questions, a notable demonstration of self-confidence in his mastery of the issues, his ability to think on his feet and to communicate ideas and ideals.

As seems to be the norm with Mayor Giuliani, the time was split about 50/50 between talking about terrorism/national security versus domestic policy issues, most of which focused on health care.

The mayor repeatedly came back to his theme that we must be “on offense” against Islamic terrorism. I agree with Rudy that most of the Democratic seekers of the presidency are far too passive in their approach to the obvious critical threat of our generation. Even more than that, however, I was gratified to see a politician not shy away from naming the true source of the problem by using the word “Islamic”. People who do not realize what the issue really is will never be capable of addressing it.

Giuliani spoke of the decimation of the military and intelligence budgets during the Clinton years. He mentioned that he could see how it might have been possible for Bill Clinton to underestimate the threat at the time, but did not forgive him for it, noting the various attacks by Islamic radicals on the World Trade Center (1993), the US Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya (1998), and the USS Cole (2000), all of which happened during Clinton’s time in office.

Despite the grave nature of our national security issues, the audience seemed at least as interested in talking about health care as about terrorism. Every question asked, and every answer given by Giuliani, revolved around a substantial fear that the Democrats want nothing short of socialized medicine and that if they get their way, the quality of medical care in America will drop dramatically as the cost to society increases massively. Giuliani made the important and correct rhetorical point that there is an obvious attraction to the idea of “universal coverage”, but that it needs to be explained to voters that this must and does mean government control of your health care decisions. He also pointed out that most of the people the Democrats’ plans would add coverage for are not America’s poor, who already are eligible for Medicaid. Instead they are people who either choose not to buy coverage or can not afford to buy coverage because the current insurance system is structured in a way that forces prices up and the tax code is structured in a way which destroys individuals’ incentive and ability to get coverage if they want it. Giuliani is correctly on board with President Bush’s proposal to modify the tax code as a first step away from forcing health insurance coverage to go through employers and to begin returning to a system of personal responsibility. The last thing we should be doing is leaving a dysfunctional system and simply forcing taxpayers to spend more money reinforcing that system.

On the issues of health care and other domestic policy issues which were discussed, Giuliani repeatedly returned to fundamental underlying principles of liberty but without an obvious dogmatic focus on the conceptual. Instead, it was clear that he truly believes the best outcomes derive from freely-made decisions of free people in the free market.

Giuliani spent a short time answering a question about the environment. He got applause for noting that it’s irresponsible of liberals to pound the table about reducing greenhouse gases but then refuse to discuss nuclear energy. The mayor gave what I thought was the only wrong answer of the event when he said that he supports increased use of ethanol, and as I was leaving I mentioned to him that he should reconsider that position as “ethanol is not as good an idea as you think.” I was very pleased overall with Giuliani’s clear understanding and direct statement that a lot of current global warming hysteria is coming not from true environmentalists but from anti-development ideologues and anti-capitalists. This is a point which would not be lost on the American people but which I have not heard from any other candidate for president.

I have noted previously that I believe Giuliani would still be the front-runner for the GOP nomination even if Fred Thompson (finally) decides to enter the race officially. A large part of the reason is women voters. It is blindingly obvious to me that Giuliani has the best prospects among suburban women, soccer moms, and single women because of his focus on security and his ability to couch deep political principle in language that relates well to just getting things done in every day life. Although it’s a sample size of one event, seeing Rudy in the room of supporters of which half were women confirmed my opinion. The women were at least as interactive with him and as engaged by his answers as the men. The women were nodding their heads in agreement, and asking follow-up questions (especially on health care) at least as much as the men. Rudy simply does not come across as the sort of power-seeking white-collar male as the other candidates do, regardless of the likelihood that he may be just that.

Fred Thompson is probably as solid on political theory as Giuliani, but when looking at the battles for toss-up states like Ohio, Giuliani has a much better chance than Thompson because he can substantially narrow the “gender gap”, whereas I do not believe Thompson can. People have made the argument to me that Rudy will have some trouble in the South and West (because he’s Italian Catholic and has supported gun control), and if Rudy believes there is any truth to that, maybe he should try to get Fred Thompson to sign on as his vice-presidential running mate, getting a pro-gun southerner on the ticket. But at the end of the day, Rudy as the presidential candidate can make the Democrats have to spend time and money trying to defend Pennsylvania where Thompson will not. Rudy can probably take Ohio, whereas Thompson will have a harder time. Will voters in Alabama really vote for Hillary because they’re not sure how to spell “Giuliani”? I don’t think so. The positives for Rudy in the North are bigger than his negatives in the South and West.

Another reason Rudy should be relatively popular among women is that he can truly run on a record of achievement. As a member of the male part of the species, I’m well aware that I can be swayed by a fine speech, by an elegant display of understanding principles of federalism, by quoting James Madison. Women are more practical than that. They think “sure, those principles are nice, but can you really get anything done?” Rudy has gotten a lot done. He tamed an ungovernable city, lowering crime while lowering taxes and reforming welfare. For voters in general, but especially for women, this will go a long way.

In total, Rudy spent about half an hour with the assembled supporters. He gave the room a good dose of policy, principle, and humor, and came across as a guy who genuinely believes he can do the best job in our nation’s most important job.

He demonstrated magnanimity and equanimity as well. When asked what he would say to people who would vote for Hillary just because she’s a woman, he gave a great answer: “That’s a silly reason to vote for someone, just as it would be silly for someone to vote for me because I’m a man or to vote for Obama because he’s African-American. Likewise people shouldn’t vote against Obama for that reason or against Romney because he’s Mormon. I mean, really, aren’t we past that kind of thing? Americans should vote for the person they think will be the best President. And as for people voting for Hillary because she’s a woman, I think it will even out. Plenty of people will vote for her for the wrong reasons and plenty of people will vote against her for the wrong reasons.”

In these days of being so repeatedly disappointed by political candidates, especially at the presidential level, it was refreshing to see that Rudy Giuliani is as appealing a candidate in person as on TV. I continue to believe that Rudy will be the Republican nominee and that he should be, as he gives the Party the best chance to win in an environment that is deservedly difficult for the GOP. As Republican voters cast ballots in primaries, I urge you to keep in mind who has the best chance of winning the general election. There will be very little satisfaction in voting for Mike Huckabee if it causes, for example, Mitt Romney or John McCain to get the nomination and then lose to a socialist named Clinton.

------------

And now a small challenge for the Giuliani campaign: At the event I attended, I happened to catch the mayor alone for a few seconds and gave him a document I’ve written about an important domestic policy issue. If someone from the campaign will contact me and tell me 1) what the subject of the document was, 2) if Rudy read it (he said he would), and 3) what his reaction to it was, I’ll send the campaign $1,000. The gauntlet has been thrown…

As Karl Rove announced his resignation in the Wall Street Journal, web sites across the political spectrum are fulminating about whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, about whether Rove is a genius or an idiot, about whether he'll still be the puppetmaster behind the scenes or will truly retire (at least for now.)

While it is somewhat interesting to see that people on the left and the right aren't particularly happy with Rove, the conservative side of the blogosphere seems happier to have him gone than the left does.

As usual, the wacked-out left can't seem to have a civil discussion. Consider this fairly typical comment from the DailyKos web site: "There was no way Bush was going to fire [Rove]... (even if he raped a child in the white house press room with cameras rolling...)" Or this paranoia from the same site "You can stow the "be with family" crapola. Something is up. No way Rove just quietly walks out for no reason. I'm battening down the hatches. This scares the hell out of me."

Is it my imagination or is it a bit odd for a political resignation to be deeply frightening?

Whereas we have this from the conservative Michelle Malkin: "But here’s what I find striking about Rove’s exit interview: Not a word here about the Harriet Miers debacle, the botching of the Dubai ports battle, or the undeniable stumbles in post-Iraq invasion policies. And not a word about the spectacular disaster of the illegal alien shamnesty, which will be the everlasting stain Rove leaves behind."

At least Malkin talks about ideas and policy when denigrating Rove...and for the record, I think she's pretty much on target here.

But I don't want to go too far in talking about all this Rove stuff because my real take on it is "big deal". Bush's brain certainly didn't seem to help the party in the last election and I believe he was fundamentally (pun intended) wrong to continue to place so much focus on the religious right rather than to realize that the GOP was abandoning and losing the fiscal conservative part of the Party base.

It is hard to imagine that there would have been any important role for Rove in working with the Republican nominee for the next Presidential election, much less with the next President. He is too tied to President Bush who is, whether you like it or not, very unpopular (although I agree with Rove that Bush's ratings are likely to improve noticeably before the end of his term.)

Rove is right that "it's time". It's probably a modest net positive for the GOP as it will remove the daily appearance of a target for Democratic hatred. On the other hand, it is hard to complain about the Democrats taking so much time and making themselves look so petty and useless as they pursue Rove, Gonzales and others whose only real offense that I can discern has been occasional incompetence in the midst of simply doing their jobs...in other words, the offense of being human.