Being a recent DC immigrant, the opportunities to attend rallies and protests of all stripes has grown exponentially. Danville Kentucky didn't have too many.
This weekend bore witness to a number of such events. The first I attended was up at Dupont Circle, a union rally a stone's throw from SEIU's headquarters. A healthy crowd, upwards of 1,000, showed up consisting mostly of union households, a speckling of ISO members (International Socialist Organization), and a handful of folks who probably showed up for the sake of protesting. As I was wandering about, Van Jones strode right in front of me (he would later speak). The crowd was generally agreeable, though I didn't wear my beliefs on my sleeve. Activities lasted for an hour, and as I would later learn a number of people marched on down to the white house. I guess they were hoping Obama would put on a pair of comfortable shoes and join them.
Following the union folks, the ISO had an abortion rally at Dupont. The recent funding cuts to Planned Parenthood was the impetus. Their message was more blunt, calling for on-demand abortions, framing it as a "human rights" issue. They were also selling books such as The Jewish Question. The crowd that stuck around for this rally was a little more ... free spirited.
Later in the day there was a separate rally in front of the white house for freedom in the middle east, specifically Yemen, Bahrain, and Libya. Egypt and Iran also had contingencies there, thought some what removed from the central events. Most of the core participants were expats and their families standing in solidarity with their countrymen. The different nationalities often competed for attentions, sometimes chanting over each other (though never at each other) and I witnessed at least one spirited debate, though it wasn't in English. a Lot of people filtered in and out of Lafayette Square, many drawn by the color and noise.
Only if there was a website to catalog upcoming protests, rallies, and marches in the city.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Shame
Shame.
Shame.
Shame.
Those were the words resonating from the halls of Wisconsin’s state capitol as their lower body passed the much discussed union bill. I first heard the audio of the event, and assumed the ruckus was resonating from rowdy rabble-rousers in the viewer’s gallery. After all, the protestors have lived in the very building for 2 weeks.
But later, I saw the video. The shouts came from Democratic law makers, the people’s public servants. Dressed in orange T-shirts (presumably a show of solidarity), the Democrats stood there, pointing at their Republican colleagues, howling “shame.” After 60 straight hours of debate over mostly Democratic amendments, the vote surprisingly passed in a body of majority Republicans. Who woulda thunk it.
To the Left, these state representatives are heroes. But let’s rewind history 18 months and remember a solitary outburst in the US House of Representatives. The two words uttered by Rep. Joe Wilson, “you lie!,” was the end of civility and decorum as we know it (and probably racist on some level!). He apologized despite the cries for censure and what not. Yet Democratic lawmakers who menacingly assail their colleagues for voting how they believe are union heroes. Another bullet point to the long list of the Left's cognitive dissonance.
The Democrats clearly show they can’t even handle the democratic process, what a shame.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
You Have the Right to ... Collectively Bargain?
When the American founders signed the Declaration of Independence, they enshrined our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We usually refer to these as fundamental, natural, or God given rights. While these rights are the foundation of our storied civil society and representative government, people of the Middle East are now sacrificing their lives to secure those basic rights. At the same time, American labor unions are sacrificing their sick days for their self proclaimed human right to collectively bargain.
There are varying degrees of how people define what a right is. Differing degrees include natural, God given, human, political, and civil rights. Now-a-days, people combine the concept of "rights" with any classification of people in order to defend their cause; student rights, fliers' rights, workers' rights.
To properly grasp the dynamics of what right are, understanding where they come from is key. The Bill of Rights protects citizens from the intrusion of the government; the document is not the government granting rights, but protecting your rights from the government. This means that rights exist independent from the government. So can the government create rights, or simply honor them?
Some in Europe have recently pushed for a universal right to the internet access or vacation. The United Nation Declaration of Human Rights enumerates a long list of supposed human rights. These entities take a proactive, or hands-on attitude towards rights. Their definition of a right has inherent government action mandated; provide education, health service, etc. On the other hand, a more libertarian approach calls for hands-off rights. People have a right to natural/fundamental rights, protected from the government - this includes the right to fail. The libertarian quip that "my rights end at your nose" (or as the Tea Party might say "my rights end at your wallet") calls for limits on government involvement or responsibility. Government is not inherently required to ensure a supposed (or government created) right.
That's why I fear the "human right" moniker attached to collective bargaining. While other countries' lists of human rights is a bloated enumeration of excuses for government involvement, America has avoided such capitulations to interest groups. Human rights still have a fundamental sense. The term "civil rights" often refers to those rights created and ensured by the government; minimum wage, voting, etc.
Yet, I'm not sure collective bargaining is even a civil right. It is a contract line in a term of employment. Over 85% of Americans do not enjoy such a luxury. They advance on the basis of their own merit, not on the negotiating skills of their union lawyers. If it was a right, shouldn't Senators, lawyers, and insure salesmen have that privilege as well?
If labor unions were truly into rights, wouldn't they offer workers the right not to be in a union?
(They're against that right by the way)
Sunday, February 20, 2011
The Paradox of Public Opinion towards Budget Cutting
As President Obama released his 2012 budget this week, the ongoing federal deficit debate has turned from electoral rhetoric to governing reality. Both Republican leadership in the House and President Obama have publicly discussed the need to examine cuts in defense and entitlement funding, but neither one have made a meaningful opening gambit. This month, a CBS poll finds that the American public is evenly split on who they trust more, Obama or House Republicans, when it come to making the right decisions about reducing the deficit. Each side holds the trust of 42 percent of Americans. This is consistent from last month, where AP-Gfk found 41 percent trusted each party.
For Republicans, public confidence in handling the deficit has fallen since last fall, when they were regularly trusted more than Democrats by roughly 7 points. Gallup’s polling shows the public’s approval of how Obama is handling the budget deficit has also fallen, from 49 percent approval in March of 2009 to 27 percent this month.
The federal deficit is of increasing concern to Americans. In Pew’s poll, 64 percent of Americans rank “reducing the budget deficit” as a top priority this January, whereas only 35 percent did so in January of 2002. The last time the budget deficit was a top priority for nearly two-thirds (65%) of Americans was in December of 1994, on the heels of the Contract with America and right before the only years of budget surpluses in modern history. In December 2010, the Wall Street Journal found a slim majority, 51 to 45, think the deficit needs to be addressed now as opposed to waiting until the economy improves. Though a large majority of Americans view the deficit as a top priority and a majority wants it addressed now, the public is sending mixed signals on how exactly they would address the national balance sheet.
In January 2011, CBS found Americans overwhelming prefer spending cuts (77%) over tax increases (9%) to reduce the deficit. When the Wall Street Journal offered the option in December, 19 percent were comfortable with letting the deficit increase. But in the same CBS poll where 77 percent favored spending cuts, only 38 percent of Americans answered “Yes” when asked if there was a specific program they would cut. While 86 percent of Americans prefer lowering the debt through spending cuts or a combination of cuts and tax raises, 35 percent in another question responded there was no program they would cut and 27 percent did not know what they would cut. When the responses of the two questions are combined, one can infer that twenty-one percent of Americans who prefer cuts in some fashion don’t want to cut anything! In this respect, politicians are representing their constituencies pretty well.
When asked about specific programs, Americans are reluctant to cut funding in most areas. The only popular cut is to the foreign aid budget. Education, Social Security, and Medicare are at the bottom of everyone’s list of acceptable cuts, and a majority of Americans from both parties oppose any cuts to education or Social Security according to Kaiser. When CBS pressed the issue in January and asks if people would rather raise taxes or reduce benefits to bring down the cost of Medicare, 64 percent favored raising taxes while 24 percent favored a reduction in benefits. The numbers for Social Security are almost exactly the same (63 and 25 percent).
Defense spending, a significant portion of the budget, is receiving increased scrutiny as the deficit is looming larger every year. Support for cutting defense spending hovers between 40 and 50 percent depending on the poll. When Kaiser breaks down this question by party, 52 percent of Republicans oppose any cuts while only a third of Independents and Democrats oppose any cuts. When Harris compared the favorability of cutting spending on twenty different programs in 1980 and again in 2011, defense spending was the only category where people are more willing to cut spending today than thirty years ago (34 to 41 percent). When CBS and the New York Times asked how they would reduce defense spending, 55 percent of Americans said they would reduce the number of American troops stationed in Europe and Asia and only 7 percent would reduce the size of military branches.
When spending cuts and tax increases directly affect those asked, respondents were slightly more tepid in their enthusiasm. CBS finds a plurality (49%) of Americans agree that “it will be necessary to cut programs that benefit people like [themselves] to lower the deficit” (as opposed to 77% who favored general spending cuts), but only 37 percent think it will be necessary to raise taxes on people like them to lower the deficit. Overall, spending cuts seem slightly more tenable than tax increases to Americans when directly affected.
There is no clear public opinion mandate for politicians to act upon when tackling the deficit. Even though most Americans favor cutting spending, programs that cost the most are the most popular. At the state level, governors are already making cuts and some retain popular support in the face of drastic spending reductions. At the national level, politicians will have to take unpopular actions to make a meaningful impact on reducing the deficit.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Budget Cuts and Governors’ Political Fortunes
Wednesday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie spoke to a packed house at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C. His remarks were entitled “It’s Time To Do Big Things,” and he addressed the need for states and Washington to make painful decisions in order to balance government budgets. Governor Christie has gained national attention from his tough stance towards public unions (specifically teachers’ unions) in righting his state’s budget.
Thursday, fifteen school systems in Wisconsin are closed due to a massive “sick-out,” where teachers have called in sick in order to continue protests at the state capitol over newly elected Governor Scott Walker’s bill to reduce the benefit packages of public sector employees. The bill asks teachers to contribute towards their retirement pensions and health care premiums in order to combat a pending $3.6 billion state deficit. Similar protests occurred when California raised tuition fees at state universities.
Most states, unlike the federal government, are constitutionally required to balance their budgets every year. A year ago, the Pew Center on the States reported that states are facing a trillion dollar gap between their pension assets and liabilities. The public understands the shape of their state economies; CBS reports 74 percent say their state’s budget is in bad shape and Pew finds that 81 percent agree their state is facing budget problems.
In the face of these looming budget gaps, Governors are being forced to make tough decisions about where precious state funds go. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn raised taxes by 67 percent. New governors in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida have rejected billions in federal money for high speed rail because they fear that project overages and maintenance costs will burden their state treasuries. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels leased a state highway to a private company for the next 75 years, for a onetime fee of just under $4 billion.
CBS finds that 68 percent of the public think that focusing on both cutting major programs and increasing taxes is the best way to handle the budget. When asked about budget correcting actions, “decreasing the pension plans of government employees” received the most support with 47 percent favoring the action. Nothing garners a majority, so any action a governor could take is seemingly be unpopular. Cutting K-12 school funding is the least popular action; only 18 percent approve of doing it to balance the budget.
Yet, governors are being rewarded for their decisive action. As Governor Christie mentioned in his speech, Governor Cuomo enjoys an approval rating in the 70s. While not as popular, Quinnipiac finds that Governor Christie has a 52 percent approval rating after his first year of budget cuts. Governor Daniels, who brought Indiana from a $600 million deficit to a $300 million surplus in his first year, had a 42 percent approval rating when he proposed program cuts, modest tax increases, and privatization. But he went on to win reelection by 18 points in 2008 in a state that also voted for Obama (Daniels is a Republican), and he now enjoys an approval rating near 70 percent amongst Hoosiers.
Americans know that state budgets are in bad shape, and they will reward strong, decisive leadership. Despite the fact that most budget saving actions garner support from less than a third of citizens, governors who take action to fix budgets are viewed favorably. New governors will face loud criticism over cuts, especially from those affected the most. But if New York, New Jersey, and Indiana are any guide, Governors who take the lead in reducing budgets are rewarded in the court of public opinion.
Thursday, fifteen school systems in Wisconsin are closed due to a massive “sick-out,” where teachers have called in sick in order to continue protests at the state capitol over newly elected Governor Scott Walker’s bill to reduce the benefit packages of public sector employees. The bill asks teachers to contribute towards their retirement pensions and health care premiums in order to combat a pending $3.6 billion state deficit. Similar protests occurred when California raised tuition fees at state universities.
Most states, unlike the federal government, are constitutionally required to balance their budgets every year. A year ago, the Pew Center on the States reported that states are facing a trillion dollar gap between their pension assets and liabilities. The public understands the shape of their state economies; CBS reports 74 percent say their state’s budget is in bad shape and Pew finds that 81 percent agree their state is facing budget problems.
In the face of these looming budget gaps, Governors are being forced to make tough decisions about where precious state funds go. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn raised taxes by 67 percent. New governors in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida have rejected billions in federal money for high speed rail because they fear that project overages and maintenance costs will burden their state treasuries. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels leased a state highway to a private company for the next 75 years, for a onetime fee of just under $4 billion.
CBS finds that 68 percent of the public think that focusing on both cutting major programs and increasing taxes is the best way to handle the budget. When asked about budget correcting actions, “decreasing the pension plans of government employees” received the most support with 47 percent favoring the action. Nothing garners a majority, so any action a governor could take is seemingly be unpopular. Cutting K-12 school funding is the least popular action; only 18 percent approve of doing it to balance the budget.
Yet, governors are being rewarded for their decisive action. As Governor Christie mentioned in his speech, Governor Cuomo enjoys an approval rating in the 70s. While not as popular, Quinnipiac finds that Governor Christie has a 52 percent approval rating after his first year of budget cuts. Governor Daniels, who brought Indiana from a $600 million deficit to a $300 million surplus in his first year, had a 42 percent approval rating when he proposed program cuts, modest tax increases, and privatization. But he went on to win reelection by 18 points in 2008 in a state that also voted for Obama (Daniels is a Republican), and he now enjoys an approval rating near 70 percent amongst Hoosiers.
Americans know that state budgets are in bad shape, and they will reward strong, decisive leadership. Despite the fact that most budget saving actions garner support from less than a third of citizens, governors who take action to fix budgets are viewed favorably. New governors will face loud criticism over cuts, especially from those affected the most. But if New York, New Jersey, and Indiana are any guide, Governors who take the lead in reducing budgets are rewarded in the court of public opinion.
Friday, February 18, 2011
The Cognitive Dissonance of the Left
5 hypocrisies the recent union protests reveal in the Democratic agenda;
1. The Party of "No"
How many times did Democrats say congressional Republicans were the party of No during the healthcare debate? That the obstructionism was against the will of the American people? And yet, Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin are heralded as heroes when they flee the state and don't show up for work, in order to prevent the passage of a law.
2. Let's Keep the Conversation Civil
When a couple signs cropped up in Tea Party rallies comparing Obama to Hitler, the Democrats would have you believe Hitler himself was speaking at the rally. After the horrible events at Tucson last month, right-wing talkers were initially blamed for the hyperbole of their talk and it's potential for violence. Civility was called for.
And yet, signs with Hitler, targets on the Governor's forehead, and analogies to rape have been witnessed at this week's union protest. The Republican Speaker's family was forced out of their house for fear of the protesters that showed up on their front lawn.
3. Astroturf
For every Tea Party, there were 5 accusations of "astroturfing," the act of groups busing people in to make their cause look bigger. Or, shady corporate interests were blamed for a fake grassroots campaign. Yet, a number of the protesters in Madison were bussed in from Illinois (maybe to make up for the missing legislators?). Obama's own volunteer network, Organizing for America, is encouraging people to join in and organizing buses to get people there. That said, does the President want the Governors of the country to "fail"?
4. Put the Kids First
Teachers always fall back on the fact that they teach because they love it, and I'm sure you, like me, have had some great ones. I'm also sure you can remember some teachers who should have been let go years ago. That said, why are teachers forcing schools to close? Do they not care about the kids? When Obama called for more funding for school meal programs, it was so the kids don't go hungry. How many growling stomachs are there today because kids don't get their subsidized school meal? How many parents are losing a day's wages because they have to stay home with their kids this week? Because the teachers don't want to contribute to their pensions and healthcare.
It would seem the unions think schools are designed to employ people, not teach the kids.
5. To Debate or Not to Debate
Obama famously said in a meeting with Republicans "I won". Compromise over the health care bill occurred only within the Democratic caucus, which was large after the 2008 elections. People said "what did you expect, Obama campaigned on health care reform." Yet, after clear victories for Republican governors and state legislators, the unions are stunned that these politicians are actually trying to balance the budget. Elections have consequences.
1. The Party of "No"
How many times did Democrats say congressional Republicans were the party of No during the healthcare debate? That the obstructionism was against the will of the American people? And yet, Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin are heralded as heroes when they flee the state and don't show up for work, in order to prevent the passage of a law.
2. Let's Keep the Conversation Civil
When a couple signs cropped up in Tea Party rallies comparing Obama to Hitler, the Democrats would have you believe Hitler himself was speaking at the rally. After the horrible events at Tucson last month, right-wing talkers were initially blamed for the hyperbole of their talk and it's potential for violence. Civility was called for.
And yet, signs with Hitler, targets on the Governor's forehead, and analogies to rape have been witnessed at this week's union protest. The Republican Speaker's family was forced out of their house for fear of the protesters that showed up on their front lawn.
3. Astroturf
For every Tea Party, there were 5 accusations of "astroturfing," the act of groups busing people in to make their cause look bigger. Or, shady corporate interests were blamed for a fake grassroots campaign. Yet, a number of the protesters in Madison were bussed in from Illinois (maybe to make up for the missing legislators?). Obama's own volunteer network, Organizing for America, is encouraging people to join in and organizing buses to get people there. That said, does the President want the Governors of the country to "fail"?
4. Put the Kids First
Teachers always fall back on the fact that they teach because they love it, and I'm sure you, like me, have had some great ones. I'm also sure you can remember some teachers who should have been let go years ago. That said, why are teachers forcing schools to close? Do they not care about the kids? When Obama called for more funding for school meal programs, it was so the kids don't go hungry. How many growling stomachs are there today because kids don't get their subsidized school meal? How many parents are losing a day's wages because they have to stay home with their kids this week? Because the teachers don't want to contribute to their pensions and healthcare.
It would seem the unions think schools are designed to employ people, not teach the kids.
5. To Debate or Not to Debate
Obama famously said in a meeting with Republicans "I won". Compromise over the health care bill occurred only within the Democratic caucus, which was large after the 2008 elections. People said "what did you expect, Obama campaigned on health care reform." Yet, after clear victories for Republican governors and state legislators, the unions are stunned that these politicians are actually trying to balance the budget. Elections have consequences.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Let Them Eat Cheese
Let Madison Burn.
As Gov. Scott Walker attempts to pass budget cutting legislation which forces unions to share in the cost of their benefits, the teachers' union has led protests in the state capitol. Nobody from the right is going to complain about protesting; the Tea Party has used it as an effective tool in the vocalization of their concerns. But when the President's organizing apparatus (Organizing for America) takes the lead in busing protesters in, when schools have to close due to an illegal strike, and politicians' families have to flee their homes because protesters are on their front lawn, something is amiss.
The debate over union entitlements and contracts is old and not going to be rehashed here. The debate about how to balance budgets is just starting, and is being hashed out in state capitals across the US. A significant portion of budget shortfalls come from unfunded public employee pension liabilities - totaling a trillion dollars for all 50 states. As witnessed with the automotive industry, paying retirees nearly full wages is unsustainable. Gov. Walker's bill asks unions to contribute towards their pensions and health care costs as well as takes away collective bargaining rights over benefits, but keeps the right to bargain over salaries. In exchange, there are no lay-offs. Millions of unemployed Americans would jump at this opportunity.
And yet, the teachers walk out on it. After years of claiming they're "putting the children first," their own childish actions have temporarily closed 15 school districts. How does this help the children? Did a weekend or evening protest not suffice? Have Wisconsinites been watching too much news coverage of Cairo in their post-football withdrawal?
In a period that demands consequential leadership, Wisconsin Democrats have not only fled town, but supposedly fled the state. While governors from both parties are making the tough decisions to balance budgets (and being reward in the court of public opinion), those who have enjoyed decades of job security and pay increases based only on the number of years they have sat behind a desk feel under assault - the President's words.
What these unions need to remember is they are comprised of public employees. The governors and state congressmen they are protesting against are also public employees. The only difference is, the public got to hire their politicians. The American public who have put in extra hours and job insecurity during the recession will not put up with the historical indulgence of unions nor their government shut-downs.
As Gov. Scott Walker attempts to pass budget cutting legislation which forces unions to share in the cost of their benefits, the teachers' union has led protests in the state capitol. Nobody from the right is going to complain about protesting; the Tea Party has used it as an effective tool in the vocalization of their concerns. But when the President's organizing apparatus (Organizing for America) takes the lead in busing protesters in, when schools have to close due to an illegal strike, and politicians' families have to flee their homes because protesters are on their front lawn, something is amiss.
The debate over union entitlements and contracts is old and not going to be rehashed here. The debate about how to balance budgets is just starting, and is being hashed out in state capitals across the US. A significant portion of budget shortfalls come from unfunded public employee pension liabilities - totaling a trillion dollars for all 50 states. As witnessed with the automotive industry, paying retirees nearly full wages is unsustainable. Gov. Walker's bill asks unions to contribute towards their pensions and health care costs as well as takes away collective bargaining rights over benefits, but keeps the right to bargain over salaries. In exchange, there are no lay-offs. Millions of unemployed Americans would jump at this opportunity.
And yet, the teachers walk out on it. After years of claiming they're "putting the children first," their own childish actions have temporarily closed 15 school districts. How does this help the children? Did a weekend or evening protest not suffice? Have Wisconsinites been watching too much news coverage of Cairo in their post-football withdrawal?
In a period that demands consequential leadership, Wisconsin Democrats have not only fled town, but supposedly fled the state. While governors from both parties are making the tough decisions to balance budgets (and being reward in the court of public opinion), those who have enjoyed decades of job security and pay increases based only on the number of years they have sat behind a desk feel under assault - the President's words.
What these unions need to remember is they are comprised of public employees. The governors and state congressmen they are protesting against are also public employees. The only difference is, the public got to hire their politicians. The American public who have put in extra hours and job insecurity during the recession will not put up with the historical indulgence of unions nor their government shut-downs.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
CPAC Recap
The last two days were a blast at the American Conservative Union's annual CPAC. Some interesting, humorous, and great speeches. I rediscovered my twitter account and it was fun to have a running commentary of events from participants in-hand during speeches and events.
Instead of commenting on individual speeches, lasting opinions will give a better summation.
One of the most interesting dynamics was the applause pattern during the speeches - Diamond vs. Student. The Diamond section represents those who pay for the premium event passes and have priority seating front and center. The Diamond club is generally older, wealthier, and more Neo/Traditionally conservative. The students get passes for $35 and usually get seat out in the wings of the ballroom. So, different topics and one-liners aroused passion from the different sections, and the subsequent applause and what-not was evident.
Pawlenty (T-Paw), Barbour, Santorum, Trump, Paul, and Johnson all will not get the nomination. Cain greatly improved his positive name recognition, though I was personally disappointed we didn't get free Godfather's pizza when he spoke. Romney looked and sounded presidential. Coulter and Breitbart were hilarious. We has a surprise appearance by the "rent is too damn high guy." Daniels spoke to the crowd as adults and took the problems facing us seriously. I think Allen West will be on any VP short list.
The Paulite libertarians were always out in presence, evident from stickers, shouts, applause, and of course the straw poll.
Coulter made a very interesting comment in her Q&A segment - "If Christie doesn't run, Romney will be the nominee and we'll lose." Very interesting.
Instead of commenting on individual speeches, lasting opinions will give a better summation.
One of the most interesting dynamics was the applause pattern during the speeches - Diamond vs. Student. The Diamond section represents those who pay for the premium event passes and have priority seating front and center. The Diamond club is generally older, wealthier, and more Neo/Traditionally conservative. The students get passes for $35 and usually get seat out in the wings of the ballroom. So, different topics and one-liners aroused passion from the different sections, and the subsequent applause and what-not was evident.
Pawlenty (T-Paw), Barbour, Santorum, Trump, Paul, and Johnson all will not get the nomination. Cain greatly improved his positive name recognition, though I was personally disappointed we didn't get free Godfather's pizza when he spoke. Romney looked and sounded presidential. Coulter and Breitbart were hilarious. We has a surprise appearance by the "rent is too damn high guy." Daniels spoke to the crowd as adults and took the problems facing us seriously. I think Allen West will be on any VP short list.
The Paulite libertarians were always out in presence, evident from stickers, shouts, applause, and of course the straw poll.
Coulter made a very interesting comment in her Q&A segment - "If Christie doesn't run, Romney will be the nominee and we'll lose." Very interesting.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
CPAC Recap: Day 1
Just wrapped up my first day at my first CPAC. Pretty interesting to say the least. To run through my novice perspectives;
Exhibit Hall - Lots of random groups, from campaign consultants to 57 Tea Party varieties. Lots of interesting people, but it seems there is a lack of "actionable" activities going on in the off year cycle. Also, a lot of the exhibitors could sure use a crash course in tabling from The Leadership Institute - they seem timid to engage me even when I am there staring at their lit. The RomenyPAC girl seemed depressed that '08 supporters were hesitant to commit and the Cain people seemed pretty intense on their guy.
Speakers;
Ron Johnson - Decent, not too memorable. Not too great at giving speeches it seemed, got lost on the page, etc.
Mitch McConnell - As a recent graduate from the state, I am accustomed to his speaking demeanor. Some great lines (as difficult as getting a deaf dog off a meat truck), but a tad slow overall.
Newt Gingrich - Really huge entrance, walked down the staircase and made his way across the hall (as opposed to everyone who just emerged from the curtain). I think he had the most coherent speech when it came to actionable policies, over the typical regurgitation of conservative talking points and a sprinkling of one-liners. He will be a strong candidate in the primary, but will have to answer questions from a lot of people over issues ranging from 3 marriages to his acceptance of climate change. As I shared with some people today, it would be an intellectual orgasm to hear him debate Obama
Donald Trump - The surprise appearance of Donald Trump is what I have dubbed the "TMZ Moment" of the day. Most people had heard the hour before that he would speak, and he was squeezed in right before Rand Paul (much to the vocal displeasure of Paul fans). He had great ideas, and really played to American Exceptionalism, but his speech failed on some foundational fronts. He can not take his aggressive management and leadership style to the world stage and simply tell OPEC to lower prices or China to stop manipulating their currency. Sovereign nations can't be "fired". And when some Paulites vocally answered "Ron Paul" to Trump's question of who will lead, Trump replied Paul can't get elected.
Hell. Broke. Loose.
The already disgruntled Paul fans went berserk while Republican regulars applauded to the fact some one finally said it. Trump has just too many feet to stick into his mouth to successfully run for president.
Rand Paul - He had the time and audience to play to his strength, a libertarian lecture. I have already been impressed by the workload his office has undertaken in his first month in the Senate. His adherence to liberty is always fundamental, and I think he will be a great work horse for us in the Senate with a flash of showmanship when the situation calls for it.
A rather ugly moment appeared when Dick Cheney had a surprise appearance to introduce Donald Rumsfeld. Though not in the ballroom, I was watching on the live stream on a TV outside. The Paulites (or as some less graceful attendees called them Paultards) took it upon themselves to call out "war criminal", "where's Osama", and the like. Others chanted "USA" to try and counter the heckling. While there is an appropriate venue to voice disagreements on the right of center movement, the moment someone is receiving an award is not such a time.
As some one on the twitosphere said, "The libertarians need to show a little respect to the conservative movement if they want to get respect from the movement." I know the comments did not represent all libertarians, but it was not a good representation.
Paul Ryan - The Right's favorite policy wonk, Ryan gave a decent speech. His problem was that while he eloquently enumerated the deficiencies of the Left over the last two years, it never seemed appropriate to applaud. It's like the type of question where answering "yes" or "no" could mean the same thing! At one point, he was talking a mile a minutes, showing his clear excitement over the legislative arm of Republican politics.
Arthur Brooks - Not being able to justify the banquet dinner expenses, I was able to watch the keynote online. Brooks gave an deliberative and rational defense of free enterprise, basing a lot of his argument on public opinion! Being intimately familiar with AEI's public opinion databases, I was probably a little too excited to hear that. Out of all the speeches I heard today, I would recommend watching his. He wasn't a politician trying to sell or justify something, he is an intellectual committed to the free enterprise system, and it clearly came through.
Exhibit Hall - Lots of random groups, from campaign consultants to 57 Tea Party varieties. Lots of interesting people, but it seems there is a lack of "actionable" activities going on in the off year cycle. Also, a lot of the exhibitors could sure use a crash course in tabling from The Leadership Institute - they seem timid to engage me even when I am there staring at their lit. The RomenyPAC girl seemed depressed that '08 supporters were hesitant to commit and the Cain people seemed pretty intense on their guy.
Speakers;
Ron Johnson - Decent, not too memorable. Not too great at giving speeches it seemed, got lost on the page, etc.
Mitch McConnell - As a recent graduate from the state, I am accustomed to his speaking demeanor. Some great lines (as difficult as getting a deaf dog off a meat truck), but a tad slow overall.
Newt Gingrich - Really huge entrance, walked down the staircase and made his way across the hall (as opposed to everyone who just emerged from the curtain). I think he had the most coherent speech when it came to actionable policies, over the typical regurgitation of conservative talking points and a sprinkling of one-liners. He will be a strong candidate in the primary, but will have to answer questions from a lot of people over issues ranging from 3 marriages to his acceptance of climate change. As I shared with some people today, it would be an intellectual orgasm to hear him debate Obama
Donald Trump - The surprise appearance of Donald Trump is what I have dubbed the "TMZ Moment" of the day. Most people had heard the hour before that he would speak, and he was squeezed in right before Rand Paul (much to the vocal displeasure of Paul fans). He had great ideas, and really played to American Exceptionalism, but his speech failed on some foundational fronts. He can not take his aggressive management and leadership style to the world stage and simply tell OPEC to lower prices or China to stop manipulating their currency. Sovereign nations can't be "fired". And when some Paulites vocally answered "Ron Paul" to Trump's question of who will lead, Trump replied Paul can't get elected.
Hell. Broke. Loose.
The already disgruntled Paul fans went berserk while Republican regulars applauded to the fact some one finally said it. Trump has just too many feet to stick into his mouth to successfully run for president.
Rand Paul - He had the time and audience to play to his strength, a libertarian lecture. I have already been impressed by the workload his office has undertaken in his first month in the Senate. His adherence to liberty is always fundamental, and I think he will be a great work horse for us in the Senate with a flash of showmanship when the situation calls for it.
A rather ugly moment appeared when Dick Cheney had a surprise appearance to introduce Donald Rumsfeld. Though not in the ballroom, I was watching on the live stream on a TV outside. The Paulites (or as some less graceful attendees called them Paultards) took it upon themselves to call out "war criminal", "where's Osama", and the like. Others chanted "USA" to try and counter the heckling. While there is an appropriate venue to voice disagreements on the right of center movement, the moment someone is receiving an award is not such a time.
As some one on the twitosphere said, "The libertarians need to show a little respect to the conservative movement if they want to get respect from the movement." I know the comments did not represent all libertarians, but it was not a good representation.
Paul Ryan - The Right's favorite policy wonk, Ryan gave a decent speech. His problem was that while he eloquently enumerated the deficiencies of the Left over the last two years, it never seemed appropriate to applaud. It's like the type of question where answering "yes" or "no" could mean the same thing! At one point, he was talking a mile a minutes, showing his clear excitement over the legislative arm of Republican politics.
Arthur Brooks - Not being able to justify the banquet dinner expenses, I was able to watch the keynote online. Brooks gave an deliberative and rational defense of free enterprise, basing a lot of his argument on public opinion! Being intimately familiar with AEI's public opinion databases, I was probably a little too excited to hear that. Out of all the speeches I heard today, I would recommend watching his. He wasn't a politician trying to sell or justify something, he is an intellectual committed to the free enterprise system, and it clearly came through.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Football, Fan Favorites, and Financial Indicators
Originally appeared at The American, AEI's blog.
Two things that Americans love are football and winners. Professional football has grown in popularity over the past 25 years. In 1985, pro football edged out baseball as America’s most popular sport by just 1 percentage point in Harris’s polling, 24 percent to 23 percent. As of this season, football opened up a 19-point gap over the second-ranked baseball, 35 percent to 16 percent. If you factor in college football, the sport is the favorite sport of half of all Americans. Gallup shows that the majority of Americans identify themselves as pro football fans throughout the last decade. The Wall Street Journal has recently found that across all metrics (ticket sales, TV viewership, merchandise sales), the NFL is at its “zenith.”
Beyond just liking football, Americans like teams who win. Asking respondents to name their two favorite teams every year, Harris has tracked team rankings since 1998 (2000 and 2001 excluded). Only two teams, the Dallas Cowboys and the Green Bay Packers, have consistently been ranked in the top ten, and the number-one spot has gone to either the Packers or the Cowboys all but once. The Pittsburgh Steelers captured that remaining number-one spot after winning the Super Bowl in 2006, and have not slipped out of the top four since. This year’s Super Bowl contenders are already fan favorites.
More interesting to observe are the crescendos in popularity following historically underperforming teams making a playoff run or the slow decline of powerhouse teams from the 1990s. The Indianapolis Colts hovered around the 24th spot (out of 32) until 2002. Since 2002, they have made the playoffs a record-breaking nine times in a row, and not surprisingly have been ranked on average as the third favorite team for the past five years. Similarly, the New Orleans Saints have consistently appeared at the end of the list. After winning the Super Bowl last year, the team shot up from their usual 24th spot in 2009 to sixth favorite in 2010. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers jumped 14 spots to number 4 in 2003 after winning the Super Bowl and the Arizona Cardinals have climbed 13 spots since their 2009 appearance. After their unexpected playoff run, we can expect the Seattle Seahawks to show some upward mobility from a bottom-scrapping 31st spot this year. Americans like winners.
Lack of success also has a significant impact; both the Denver Broncos and the San Francisco 49ers have witnessed a slow but steady decline over the last decade after repeat visits to the Super Bowl in the 1990s. The Jacksonville Jaguars, one of four teams to never reach the Super Bowl, have been at the bottom of the list five out of the last six years.
Looking at another historical trend, the stock market has gained on average 15.2 percent the years the NFC wins the Super Bowl and only 7.3 percent in years the AFC wins. Have no fear though; in the years that either the Packers or Steelers have appeared in a Super Bowl, the stock market has gained on average 25.3 percent. The game this year is already a contest between two fan favorites, and all indicators point to it being a market favorite as well.
Two things that Americans love are football and winners. Professional football has grown in popularity over the past 25 years. In 1985, pro football edged out baseball as America’s most popular sport by just 1 percentage point in Harris’s polling, 24 percent to 23 percent. As of this season, football opened up a 19-point gap over the second-ranked baseball, 35 percent to 16 percent. If you factor in college football, the sport is the favorite sport of half of all Americans. Gallup shows that the majority of Americans identify themselves as pro football fans throughout the last decade. The Wall Street Journal has recently found that across all metrics (ticket sales, TV viewership, merchandise sales), the NFL is at its “zenith.”
Beyond just liking football, Americans like teams who win. Asking respondents to name their two favorite teams every year, Harris has tracked team rankings since 1998 (2000 and 2001 excluded). Only two teams, the Dallas Cowboys and the Green Bay Packers, have consistently been ranked in the top ten, and the number-one spot has gone to either the Packers or the Cowboys all but once. The Pittsburgh Steelers captured that remaining number-one spot after winning the Super Bowl in 2006, and have not slipped out of the top four since. This year’s Super Bowl contenders are already fan favorites.
More interesting to observe are the crescendos in popularity following historically underperforming teams making a playoff run or the slow decline of powerhouse teams from the 1990s. The Indianapolis Colts hovered around the 24th spot (out of 32) until 2002. Since 2002, they have made the playoffs a record-breaking nine times in a row, and not surprisingly have been ranked on average as the third favorite team for the past five years. Similarly, the New Orleans Saints have consistently appeared at the end of the list. After winning the Super Bowl last year, the team shot up from their usual 24th spot in 2009 to sixth favorite in 2010. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers jumped 14 spots to number 4 in 2003 after winning the Super Bowl and the Arizona Cardinals have climbed 13 spots since their 2009 appearance. After their unexpected playoff run, we can expect the Seattle Seahawks to show some upward mobility from a bottom-scrapping 31st spot this year. Americans like winners.
Lack of success also has a significant impact; both the Denver Broncos and the San Francisco 49ers have witnessed a slow but steady decline over the last decade after repeat visits to the Super Bowl in the 1990s. The Jacksonville Jaguars, one of four teams to never reach the Super Bowl, have been at the bottom of the list five out of the last six years.
Looking at another historical trend, the stock market has gained on average 15.2 percent the years the NFC wins the Super Bowl and only 7.3 percent in years the AFC wins. Have no fear though; in the years that either the Packers or Steelers have appeared in a Super Bowl, the stock market has gained on average 25.3 percent. The game this year is already a contest between two fan favorites, and all indicators point to it being a market favorite as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
