If You Believe This You'll Back Santorum

By way of Scott Johnson of Powerline and the eternally luminous Mickey Kaus I arrive at this Bold Prediction of the 2000 election by David Lebedoff.  His thesis, described by Mickey as "eerily prescient" when he launched it in 1978, revolves around the development of (and reaction to) an anti-democratic meritocracy:

The economic battle for the presidency could go either way. And that brings us to the other battle, the one that Mr. Bush expects to win: the war against the meritocracy.

This is a war over what kind of people should be in charge, and it has been raging for decades. To some extent it's a values war.

...

So what's the matter with merit? Absolutely nothing -- assuming that merit can be measured. But what if it can't? Do good college grades tell us who is better at life in its wider scope, and not just college courses? Do they tell us who would be a better president?

The meritocracy thinks that they do. This isn't just conceit. People are naturally grateful to the source of their success. To a businessman, it's the free market. To Prince Charles, it's the monarchy. To millions of Americans holding better jobs than their parents ever dreamed of, it's the school work or the SAT. Only that's not what they think. They all think it's merit.

The problem with the meritocracy is that it believes it's certifiably better at everything. It has demonstrated a proficiency at reasoning skills, and therefore thinks every problem can be solved entirely with that proficiency. If this were indeed correct, then Herbert Hoover would have been a better president than Franklin Roosevelt, and Jimmy Carter would have ranked higher than Ronald Reagan.

Another problem with the meritocracy is that it doesn't really believe in majority rule, because if we already know who the smartest people are, why should we bother to solicit the opinion of anyone else?

This has caused, not consciously but very, very pervasively, a restructuring of our institutions to avoid the will of the electorate. The classic example is Hillary Clinton's plan to overhaul health care, devised away from the public debate, in rooms full of policy experts. Increasingly, too, major decisions are made by judges and administrators virtually immune from electoral reproach, let alone removal.

Does any of that remind anyone of, I don't know, the housing meltdown, TARP and the auto bailouts? Cap and trade?  Algae-fueled cars?  C'mon, Big Government knows best!

Mr. Bush is hoping that the backlash against this elitist approach is focused on Mr. Gore. To be seen primarily as a wonk is fatal to a candidate today. Mr. Clinton flew under the voter radar because he was a Southern governor who had the good old boy thing down perfectly.

If we played "Pin The Tail On The Wonk" how would Barack do?  Would Mitt do any better?

So why does this war favor Mr. Bush? Because the voters are so alienated by the effect of the meritocracy on the very concept of consent of the governed that our elections have been transformed. Campaigns are framed to be less about issues than about the candidate's background and outlook. If a presidential candidate is seen as primarily a member of the meritocracy, the voters seem to push the other lever, even if it means tax cuts for the rich.

Values play into this war. A candidate whose principal faith is in pure reason, rather than experience, frightens most voters. As an alternative, they look for someone guided by values: tradition, constancy, patience, resolve, tolerance, dispassion, compassion, courage, good humor, humility, faith.

Faith is a good example. If you believe in God and religious tenets, you possess values other than total reliance on the power of intellect. That's why this campaign has been marked on both sides by more protestations of faith than were ever provoked by Torquemada.

Who comes off as a man of faith in this race amongst Obama, Romney and Santorum?  To be fair, I don't think Santorum does well on the "good humor" front, and I think both Romney and Obama score well on the family values/character side, but still, those two are covered in Ivy.

This 2000 article certainly foreshadows the emergence of anti-intellectuals such as Sarah Palin, although that aspect of the Republican Party has been around for a while (e.g., Reagan was smart enough not to flaunt his smarts).  I will even throw Chris Christie into the mix.  Rotundity is declasse among the elites; Christie can be as smart as he wants since he is so visibly not an elite.

If the electorate has had enough of the elites both Obama and Romney are in trouble.  Newt too.

 

Comments

[Walter]

Rick! Is at least as 'smart' as Mitt! or O'bama But he flaunts his faith to an extent unavailable to any of his opponents. As a result, he gets treated as less smart by those who believe (pun intended) that belief is stupid.

Interesting that the last smart guy from Geogia to be President was Mr. Carter, though.

[narciso]

Really TM, after four years, don't you want to 'revise and extend those remarks, the problem was that their solutions are often wrong, Hillarycare, Dodd/Frank, ARRA.

[matt]

The general perception should be that the elite got us into this mess, because it's the truth.

The various propaganda machines are desperately trying to distract us from this fact. GWB was never a regular guy. Nor was Gore or Kerry or any of these educated and/or credentialed boobs.

Obama is the epitome of the system man. Go to the right schools. Mix with the right set. Say the right things. Never let anything bite you in the ass. Leave no fingerprints, and you too can be President one day.

How many of these people were educated at land grant schools? Catholic schools? Night school?

How many of these people were ever tested for common sense?

It's an oligarchy and you have to punch your ticket in the acceptable manner or you are and always will be an outsider.

They are running the country into the ground maintaining the status quo and the results are in the paper every day.

The Tea Party and OWS both recognize different aspects of the system with different ideas for solutions, but the corruption of the system is a central belief.

Obama's speech on energy was a classic of sophistry and "blame Bush" and it blew by most of the country because they were watching reality tv or simply trying to forget the world outside their four walls.

Until they great middle awakens, it's like Pete Townsend wrote in 1971, 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

It's interesting that when I looked up the date, I found that Micheal Moore had approached Townsend to use the song in Farenheit 9/11, and Townsend refused. Good on him!

[Chubby]

((This 2000 article certainly foreshadows the emergence of anti-intellectuals such as Sarah Palin, although that aspect of the Republican Party has been around for a while (e.g., Reagan was smart enough not to flaunt his smarts). I will even throw Chris Christie into the mix. Rotundity is declasse among the elites; Christie can be as smart as he wants since he is so visibly not an elite.))

I think we have to understand our terms better. In actuality, merit can "not be measured" only by postmodernists and moral relativists. As for "anti intellecutualism", Sarah Palin is most certainly NOT an anti-intellectual. The anti-intellectuals are those who fail to engage her ideas but instead attack her personally. The anti-intellectuals are the msm and the intellectually dishonest trolls who haunt conservative blogs in the attempt to sabotage discussion. So let's not use the left's incorrect labels of us to describe ourselves, but assign the labels properly and correctly.

[bgates]

Was Hoover worse than FDR? Less popular, certainly, but what 20th century president did more long-term damage than Roosevelt? If he didn't have the arrogance to overturn the informal term limit that dated back to Washington, he'd be remembered as a demagogue who made the depression worse and left America unprepared for war.

[Captain Hate]

matt, iirc Townsend refused to let dipstick Abbie Hoffman use his stage @ Woodstock as a forum for some of his self-promoting lunacy.

[Clarice]

Ahem, need I remind you that although the media played him ((and Eisenhower) as dunces, Bush had far more education that Gore did and got his degrees from Yale and Harvard.

Stil, there's a valid point there. I'd be for a rule, requiring anyone who called himself an "intellectual" to be confined to academic precincts until he got over it.

[Threadkiller]

Off topic.

" A state commission in Indiana that was asked to review whether Barack Obama is eligible to be on the state’s 2012 ballot has scheduled a hearing for Friday, and warned the parties to the argument that those who fail to attend may be subject to a default decision.

The notice was signed by Trent Deckard and J. Bradley King, co-directors of the Indiana Election Commission, and regards case No. 2012-176, which is a challenge to Obama brought by Karl Swihart.

“The hearing is called to determine the merits of the candidate challenge pursuant to Indiana Code 3-8-1-2,” the notice, addressed to Barack Obama at a Chicago address for his campaign, explains. “A party who fails to attend or participate in the hearing may be held in default or have the proceeding dismissed.”"

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/indiana-election-commission-warns-obama.html

I think the hearing is today at 9:00. I wonder what the outcome will be.

[Jane]

It's an oligarchy and you have to punch your ticket in the acceptable manner or you are and always will be an outsider.

One thing I have noticed about being in the tea party, granted on a very small scale - is that you develop some leverage. The people in power e.g. selectmen, or people proposing new bills, referendums, etc want our support. Nearly every month at our tea party meetings, someone running for something or pushing something shows up (unannounced) to garner our support. And we are a very small entity, but I guess talking to 15 people at once is better than talking to one.

I think that is what we are supposed to do to battle the elitism. But who knows?

[Thomas Collins]

Nothing wrong with a meritocracy. The sticky issue is who does the measuring and what standards are applied. Looking back on three POTUSes, for example, it is clear that Reagan had a better intellectual grasp of classical liberalism, and its proper role in a self-evident truths polity, than either Hoover or Carter. In other words, in a meritocracy that measured intellectual ability in areas crucial to the POTUsey, Reagan toppd both Hoover and Carter (there being nothing in Hoover's or Carter's background to indicate they would be superior to Reagan in national security policy). Yet, the credentialled moronocracy routinely derided Reagan as an amiable dunce, or worse.

[Janet]

Another problem with the meritocracy is that it doesn't really believe in majority rule, because if we already know who the smartest people are, why should we bother to solicit the opinion of anyone else?

from an old Big Lizards Blog post -
"And so these Learned Men, having Inquir'd into the Case for the Opposition, discover'd that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv'd at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion."

[Porchlight]

This 2000 article certainly foreshadows the emergence of anti-intellectuals such as Sarah Palin, although that aspect of the Republican Party has been around for a while (e.g., Reagan was smart enough not to flaunt his smarts).

Weak, TM. Believing that the Ivy League types currently running Washington (and just about everything else) are damaging the country and not representing citizens' best interests does not make one an anti-intellectual.

[Thomas Collins]

Another problem is that what is touted as a meritocratic approach is often celebrity worship with less intellectual merit than TMZ following Paris and LiLO and Britney around. For example, in today's so-called meritocracy, the quiet, dogged, intellectual approach to matters of national security of James Knox Polk wouldn't go over well with the credentialled moronocrcay, because it wouldn't be cool enough. Barack Obama's supposed intellect was really based on a smartly crafted coolness factor (Axelrod and Plouffe being expert not only in trashing the opposition, but building up their man). Yet, it terms of pure intellect, Obama as an intellectual is a joke compared to Polk.

[Melinda Romanoff]

TK-

You never responded to my question of the presidential eligibility of Denise Milani.

I await your input.

[Captain Hate]

The same snotty assholes that were snookered by El JEFe are now telling me that Santorum is the worst possible thing to happen to the Repubs. I'm not a Santorum fan by any stretch but having those extremely flawed judges of things weighing in against him makes me wonder why they think I should trust them this time.

[Danube of Thought]

Dorothy Rabinowitz today on Santorum:

It's not only that a certain body of Santorum pronouncements on social issues exists, and that they're of a sort that large sectors of the American electorate find unpalatable, to put it mildly. Or that he continues to add to them.

By the time Democratic researchers apply themselves to this compendium of Mr. Santorum's views—in the unlikely event that he becomes the Republican nominee—it's size will have doubled, at the least. The Republicans have already provided President Obama with high-value gifts this election year, but none nearly as delectable as the prospect of a run against Mr. Santorum.

Among the candidate's noteworthy declarations, we can count his address to a New Hampshire audience last October, in which he described his upset after reading the text of John F. Kennedy's landmark 1960 speech dedicated to the separation of church and state. "I almost threw up," he told his listeners. Kennedy, he announced, "threw his faith under the bus in that speech."

That an American candidate's commitment to the separation of church and state made Mr. Santorum want to vomit—and that this fact was something in which he took pride, and wanted to share with an audience—is telling. What it tells isn't something the citizenry tends to find endearing.

It's probably protected, but it's here.

[Thomas Collins]

Wow, we've moved from cheerleaders to bathing suit models to lingerie models to in your face but not quite porn models (Milani). Can movement into Summer Leigh territory be far behind? :-))

[Porchlight]

Another problem with the meritocracy is that it doesn't really believe in majority rule, because if we already know who the smartest people are, why should we bother to solicit the opinion of anyone else?

Meritocracy does not equal credentialism. Diplomas are not enough to tell us who the smartest people are. A meritocracy allows those with real world achievement, ability, determination and smarts - not merely ability to gain a diploma in four years and network with it - to advance. A proper meritocracy allows an uncredentialed former haberdasher from small-town Missouri to succeed a President in wartime and do a half-decent job of it. A proper meritocracy would take a credentialed moron like Barack Hussein Obama and dump him out into the streets when he fails to perform, even at the Occidental College or community organizer level.

Anyway, what's the alternative to a meritocracy? How is the alternative superior?

[Danube of Thought]

Kimberly Strassel, same place:

It is here that Mr. Santorum has a problem. The Pennsylvanian is a man of deep faith, which many Americans might admire. He is also campaigning on the argument that strong religious communities and families make for a strong America. This, too, is something that ought to resonate with voters, as many believe that these institutions are best suited to solve most problems, and that government needs to get out of their way.

Yet Mr. Santorum has left many Americans with the impression that he believes it his job as president to revitalize these institutions. And he has done little to reassure voters that his personal views will not become policy. Quite the opposite. Mr. Santorum loves, for instance, to highlight his plans to triple the child tax credit—out-and-out social policy clearly rooted in his desire to increase childbirth. Voters will naturally wonder what other values he'd seek to institute via government.

All the more so, given Mr. Santorum's unrefined method of delivering his social message. It is one thing to argue that the federal government has no right to force religious affiliates to pay for contraception; or to say that courts should not impose gay marriage; or to criticize policies that are biased against stay-at-home moms. All those statements appeal to basic liberty and are winners for the GOP.

It is quite another for Mr. Santorum to rail that contraception is "harmful" to women; to wax on about the "emotions" surrounding women on the front lines; to graphically inform the nation about his "problem with homosexual acts"; or to moan, as he did in his book, that too many women refuse to stay home with their kids but rather use "convenient" rationalizations to fool themselves into thinking "professional accomplishments are the key to happiness."

[Appalled]

Every politician --- EVERY politician -- portrays himeself or herself as a man of the people arrayed against some variety of elites. Jimmy Carter -- the then current President -- certainly promoted his common people street cred against Washington. (Washington is always somebody else -- not the Washingtonian talking to you.)

The result, I think, is everyone who goes into a voting booth believes, fot the most part, they are voting against Washington and the elites and their alleged meritocracy. I think, using this blog as an example, if Mitt Romney had never come up with Romneycare and had always opposed abortion, he would not be an elitist establishment , and he would be seen as a Utah Republican, not a Massachussetts RINO.

The idea that folks hate smart people because they are smart is -- well -- not very smart. What they hate is arguments from authority by credentialed morons that do not align with the world they see in Ohio or Georgia or Texas. If the elites actually promoted theories beloved by Adam Smith, and did not try to upend the cultural beliefs of the folks living outside DC, NYC Boston San Fransisco and Hollywood, then there would likely be little anti-Harvard posturing by conservative politicians. Instead, it would be the Left making those same arguments.

In other words, people vote against the policies, not against elitism. Because people know in their bones that the side they are voting to elect is David, and the other party is Goliath.

[narciso]

Yes, you notice, how they don't mind the state interfering in the church's business, but not the other way around,

[Clarice]

I respect Dorothy Rabinowitz enormously. She's brilliant and brave and really has made a difference--see her work on the phony child care abuse stories, for example. But it doesn't appear that Santorum is losing vots, contrary to her assumption. As I showed yesterday, he seems to be picking up womens' votes--especially Republican womens' votes-- it is unlikely even God would draw many votes from Democratic women under any circumstances.

Generally speaking I assume his personal social views--never to be put into law--bother voters less than Romney's two stepping, Romneycare, and wealth..and his verbal flubs like not caring about the poor.
Obviously YMMV

[narciso]

Eureka, Appalled, I think you've gotten to the nub of the matter,

[Chubby]

((Yet, the credentialled moronocracy routinely derided Reagan as an amiable dunce, or worse.))

anti-intellectualism doing its dirty work of knocking down evil bourgeoise values of the intellect and reason and moral good

[AliceH]

Well, I am completely flummoxed by the current usage of "meritocracy" as well as "intellectual" as shorthand for credentials, IQ, or even reputation.

All this time, I thought the former meant "rewards based on demonstrated competence through successful delivery of beneficial goals", and the latter to be "using the analytical faculty of the mind in preference to relying on physical, emotional, or experiential data".

I'm reminded of a line from ... uh... somebody. Be right back (if I can find it).

[Rick Ballard]

Appalled,

Bravo! Followed by a strong Hear! Hear!

[Rick Ballard]

Appalled,

Bravo! Followed by a strong Hear! Hear!

[narciso]

At the time, the flux capacitor is in the shop, the left and no small section of the right, still believed in detente, saw no flaw with Keynesian theory, and were dubious about
a strong proactive approach on crime, Now Afghanistan and Nicaragua, sort of cleared the decks on the first, stagflation did in the second, although the latter was harder to dismiss.

[Captain Hate]

Bingo C. I respect Tammy Bruce quite a bit but I don't agree with everything she states; and she has said over the internet that I surely shouldn't.

[Gmax]

Articulating a church tenet about the existence of evil incarnate, Looney.

Articulating a belief that algae is going to solve our energy problems, brilliant!

[Janet]

It's not only that a certain body of Santorum pronouncements on social issues exists, and that they're of a sort that large sectors of the American electorate find unpalatable, to put it mildly.

What these people don't get is that there is a large sector of the American electorate that find liberal pronouncements on social issues unpalatable!

"According to Gallup polls from recent years, about half the American population identifies as pro-life while half identify as pro-choice. If you don’t have a sense for how controversial abortion is, you simply shouldn’t be in journalism."

[Gmax]

Keep that up Appalled and you and I might become simpatico...

[Chubby]

((Articulating a belief that algae is going to solve our energy problems, brilliant! ))

I used to have a dog named Algy and you are correct, great dog that he was, he could not have solved our energy problems :)

[AliceH]

Here it is - Edward Michael George. LUN

Apocolyptic Bushwa
Is it possible that there is an alternative English language that I'm unaware of? One that uses all the same words, but in which sentences like this have an obvious--and non-preposterous--meaning?

Given current economic realities, this is no longer a utopian proposal, but an urgent necessity. (Toronto Star)

God I hope that's what it is.

[Chubby]

((What these people don't get is that there is a large sector of the American electorate that find liberal pronouncements on social issues unpalatable!))

Prop 8 comes to mind

[bgates]

TK's post reminds me of another problem with our meritless meritocracy: Those who know nothing but that they know what is best will not ignore only faith and tradition but also law. If Obama's credentials prove that he is a better political director than his political director and a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, and a better judge of how the government should operate than any of the people elected or appointed to so judge, why should he feel constrained to obey Georgia or Indiana state law, or federal statute? The rationale for the rejection of majority rule works just as well at the highest levels of the meritocracy for rejection of any rule at all.

It's a mode of thought that leads to the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby - and either killing it or leaving it in a hospital closet to die.

[narciso]

Yes there have been some odd notesl like here;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071330757893248.html

But her previous contributions have such, in journalism and cultural criticism that I don't dismiss her,

[Thomas Collins]

AliceH, I think defenders of the status quo would say that studying and participating in the proper community service activities at the proper schools, having a job in law or banking or media or academia or as a community organizer at the proper institutions, taking the proper political positions, and only being emotionally and erotically involved with like minded members of the same or different genders (or unspecified ones; I hope I have covered all possibilities), is itself indicative of delivering solid results. It's the facade of merit hiding the rot of credentialism.

Well, they might not say it in that manner, but I think that's the substance of their position.

[Janet]

from the Strassel clip - And he has done little to reassure voters that his personal views will not become policy.

???What? What other candidate is suppose to set aside his/her personal views? Whose views should Santorum follow...hers?

It is like the Republican old guard is jealous that the Dems got a puppet that obeys the progressive puppet masters while they are stuck with candidates that won't obey what "they" say.

[Chubby]

AliceH

thanks for your effort in locating that great quote

[Clarice]

Appalled, what a brilliant observation!

[Captain Hate]

I think Appalled is king of the interwebbz for the day.

[Danube of Thought]

Whose views should Santorum follow...

On social issues, no one's.

[Danube of Thought]

TK, I should think that in Indiana the issue is res judicata.

[Jack is Back!]

Does anyone know the demographic makeup of the 49% who don't pay Federal income taxes and the 49% who are on the dole full time or partially? I will bet that the greatest percentage are single mother/father families and/or divorced individuals. Or individuals from broken homes.

And isn't that what Santorum is "preaching" with regard to "family values - Judeo/Christian values" and the effect of evil on society? Would we be much better off if the nuclear family unit was less disturbed and more entitlement free? Pehaps he needs to do more to tie together his theological views as they pertain to society and the issues we face day to day including the economy.

[Jane]

What these people don't get is that there is a large sector of the American electorate that find liberal pronouncements on social issues unpalatable!

I find liberal bashing of religion unpalatable, and as I often say, I'm not religious. In fact I think the anti- religion stance has pushed me further into the pro-life category than anything. I'm moved more by my disdain of the opposition, than the issue.

I don't think I'm alone, but I am quite sure I am not a majority. Santorum's religion doesn't seem like a threat to me, but it will to many. All the people who are not screaming "separation of church and state" over the mandatory contraception mandate will be screaming it over a Santorum presidency.

(That fear may actually help people get over Romney's Mormonism.)

But I do worry about Santorum's big government positions in the past. I really haven't seen any renouncing of those. He should not be a tea party candidate for that reason. However many tea partiers are evangelicals, and I think that explains his popularity among us.

And in the end we are devoted ABO-ers.

[narciso]

Meanwhile, David Brooks makes Mortimer Adler sad, and frankly he hasn't been kean on the Junior Pod.

[centralcal]

Just arrived at work and catching up.

Ditto to the other comments about Appalled's comment.

[AliceH]

AliceH, I think defenders of the status quo would say that studying and participating in the proper community service activities at the proper schools, having a job in ... is itself indicative of delivering solid results

You've made my point. Enrollment IS the achievement. It's Humpty-Dumpty again: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

[narciso]

You know I'm all confuzzled, surely there would be evidence that Santorum voted against
contraception in the 16 years he was in Congress, no, that is 'evidence of things seen,' not those hoped for or feared,

It's like that Politico piece in the previous
thread, that I imagined had to include either
a question by a reporter, or an answer by Obama,

[Threadkiller]

Ankeny was dismissed on procedural ground, DoT. "Failure to state a claim." At no point was Obama declared to be a natural born citizen. Plenty of window dressing though.

Until some sort of final judgement is made, in Indiana, I assume the concept of res judicata does not apply.

Mel, when I am done with all this photographic evidence, I will issue a statement.

[Neo]

Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg is out with a must-read polling memo this morning, which offers some eye-opening advice to President Obama and his re-election team. After testing several of the president's economic messages, he finds the argument that the economy is back on the right track polls miserably - and "produces disastrous results."

[Old Lurker]

"Rick! Is at least as 'smart' as Mitt! or O'bama"

If you mean JOM's own Rick B, then the proper formula is "at least as smart as(Mitt + Obama) squared".

Oh.

You meant the other Rick.

[narciso]

Althouse is as tendentious as ever, didn't the battle of Madison, teach her some valuable lessons,

[Danube of Thought]

Consider that both might be looney, Gmax.

Dismissal for failure to state a claim is not ptocedural; it's a ruling on the merits of the allegations in the complaint.

[narciso]

Yes, but one gets a respectful hearing, by all the right people, and one does not.

[Thomas Collins]

TK, I take it from your posts over the last few months that I have totally failed to persuade you that under the separation of powers structure of the Constitution, this is not a matter for federal courts, but for Congress in deciding whether to certify the votes of each state's electors.

By the way, I don't know what your personal and financial situation is, but, notwithstanding the fact that I think you are wrong on this issue, you really should go to law school. You'd be a great lawyer. Plus, you have the added advantage that when you go to one of those high powered meetings at a downtown law office, and your colleague's $200,000 car breaks down, you can fix it on the spot and gain the undying gratitude of that colleague!

Now, I know many of my friends here would say that going from what you do to practicing law is a step down. I say it's neither a step up or step down, it's applying in a different context the rare combination of mechanical and verbal skills you possess.

[Captain Hate]

Maybe somebody should tell Althouse that Terry Southern wasn't writing a self-help book.

[Old Lurker]

JiB, as that "49% who don't pay taxes" fact from the IRS gains momentum, it is useful to point out that the actual number is 49.5% and as a group, last year $100B was paid out to that 49.5% as tax credits...meaning "half aren't paying nuthin" really is "half takes $100B, while the other half pays that $100B plus all the other costs of running the gummint".

[NK]

Neo-- you do have to be careful of the Greenberg (Mr. Rosa Delaurio) and Carville polling; they lost out controlling the Dem party to 'Bam's stormtroopers in 2008 -- so they have an agenda. That said, I think their polling here is spot on-- NO ONE, is buying the ,Bam jobs spin. Obamacare and threatened and actual tax increases killed the job market, and the vast majority of voters know it. Couple that with $4-500 gas nationwide by June, skyrocketing food prices and 'Bam's a goner.

[Danube of Thought]

I agree TK should go to law school. He would love it.

[Danube of Thought]

Ol' Satan has met his match in Karen Santorum:

""I personally think this is God's will. I think He has us on a path, and I do think there's a lot more happening than what we're seeing,' Karen Santorum told Glenn Beck as she and her husband sat for an interview on his Web-based show, GBTV. 'Personally I mean I think Rick's a great guy, and he's really smart and everything. But I think a lot more is happening than what we can actually see.'"

[Janet]

How come nobody ever suggests I should go to law school? :(

Hah!

[NK]

OL-- not quite right; our half pays the $100B to the 49% and the pays the interest to borrow $1.3 TRILLION/year to pay for the rest of the gummint. Sheer madness. This is why the world treats the Dollar like toilet paper and gas and food prices have skyrocketed for american families.

[NK]

Why do people dislike TK so much they want to send him to law school?

[Neo]

Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg is out with a must-read polling memo this morning, which offers some eye-opening advice to President Obama and his re-election team. After testing several of the president's economic messages, he finds the argument that the economy is back on the right track polls miserably - and "produces disastrous results."

[Neo]

On Thursday -- one day before the Indiana Election Commission was to weigh challenges to ballot access by Santorum and other candidates -- the Marion County Board of Voter Registration said Santorum had more than enough signatures for inclusion on the ballot.

"I am very pleased and happy for all citizens of the state of Indiana, many of whom would like to have the chance to vote for Rick Santorum for president," said state Sen. Mike Delph, a Carmel Republican who is supporting Santorum's bid for the White House.

[Old Lurker]

Right you are, NK, plus after paying interest on that $1.3T, if it is ever to be paid down, it will be our half doing that, too.

[narciso]

Yes there are a whole lot of sour lemons, out in that poll, only the 'fairness' trope had any traction, but the economic reality counters that.

OT, Kyle Smith is a severe tool as his review
of 'Act of Valor' confirms.

[Jane]

Why do people dislike TK so much they want to send him to law school?

Maybe that's why Janet.

TK would drive his professor's nuts, which is reason enough to go.

[Danube of Thought]

Janet, you certainly should if the law is of as much interest to you as it is to TK.

[A.Men]

I would vote for Snake handler religious candidate against Obama.

ABO 2012 (Anybody But Obama)

King Barack Hussein Obama is attacking religious freedom and freedom in general.

[Thomas Collins]

Janet, you might like law school, but I think you might prefer the non-legal advocacy role (using the lawyers and the bankers and the whatevers to accomplish your policy goals, and, if they don't perform, making it clear to them that it is not an option not to get the job done for you).

Am I correct?

[Melinda Romanoff]

TK-

I suspect you'll get smothered in all the evidence. No need to comment further.

[centralcal]

Stan Greenberg is married to Rosa DeLauro? I didn't know that.

[narciso]

PT Barnum was right,

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/23/2656311/president-obama-to-talk-about.html

[Thomas Collins]

Mel, even if TK doesn't want to comment further on the "Milani controversy", I might if I could ever figure out a way to go beyond "smothered" without being banned by TM from ever posting again!

[narciso]

She was born in Czechoslovakia, and came here at age 21, so work it out,

[Melinda Romanoff]

TC-

I don't think there would be a ban, just would stop working at some workplaces.

[Dave (in MA)]

Oil companies face fines for not making their products with unicorn farts.

[narciso]

AS night follows day,

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/obamas-campaign-opens-fire-on-the-kochs/253571/#disqus_thread

[NK]

CC-- here's the DeLauro wiki page, she and greenberg have been married many many years, they are permanent drinkers at the Big Govt/DC (the photo is unfortunately accurate-- she is quite manish) trough.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_DeLauro

[NK]

Big Gov't/DC trough....

[Janet]

Am I correct?

Probably, TC... I'm just jokin' around though.

[Melinda Romanoff]

narciso-

You researched the wrong part of the web. Next time try "images".

[Thomas Collins]

See LUN for something that to a political junkie might be juicier than a Milani pictorial (Congress might have to confront raising the debt limit before the Election of 2012, because the current debt limit might be exceeded shortly after such election).

[NK]

TomC/jimmyK/MelR and others-- below is a link to ZeroHedge, I share Tyler Durden's disgust with Dollar debasement, but he's over the top on Gold and anti-elitism (yes he's a Paulian), but the link has lots of data regarding oil pricing for the past 40 years-- so you can draw your own conclusions --obviously I have:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/what-rising-gasoline-prices-do-economy

[Ignatz]

--TK's post reminds me of another problem with our meritless meritocracy--

How does one form a meritocracy in elective offices?
In competitive fields like sports or finance the competition is to excel at the particular objective which excellence is easily measured.

In elective office the competition is to be elected and reelected. One can excel at that while having nearly zero merit at actually governing so long as one becomes an ensconced incumbent able to purchase enough votes with the public trough.
Being a member of a political meritocracy is analgous to having an honored place in the pantheon of great confidence men; the only thing either excel at is an ability to spot the legions of suckers born minute by minute.

[Extraneus]

Mr. Santorum loves, for instance, to highlight his plans to triple the child tax credit—out-and-out social policy clearly rooted in his desire to increase childbirth.

Er... What's wrong with a politician's desire to increase the US birth rate? It's currently at its lowest level in history, right when the baby boomers need a major piggy-back ride, and the associated entitlement bomb is the biggest threat we face as a nation.

I don't get all the squeamishness about Santorum. This is clearly a valid public policy concern, and so are teenage sex, marriage rates, etc. A hell of a lot more valid than green energy, for example.

[Cecil Turner]

I think this entire argument is silly. The vast majority of us are true believers in merit (at least to the extent that we want a competent president), the problem is how to assess that merit.

But the anti-intellectual divide proffered by our credentialed betters is an illogical load of hooey. Selecting a president based on SAT scores and Harvard Law class standing is no more reasonable than picking a plumber based on the neatness of his haircut: any of those criteria might tell you something about the man, but none is a pertinent measure of merit. For a plumber, look to his last major plumbing job; for a president, the best bet is his last major executive government experience.

Hence a good stint as governor is probably the best indicator of a successful presidency, and that measure goes a lot farther to explain the "anti-intellectual" effect supposedly observed. The bigger question is how we ever let these idiots convince [a very thin majority of] us a man with no record was qualified. We can repent at leisure, after we toss his ignorant ideological idiocy out of office come November.

[Captain Hate]

AS night follows day

Attacks on private citizens for nothing more than something which doesn't have the slightest hint of illegality. But this isn't class warfare; this is just explaining things to the folks.

[Ignatz]

Never heard of her before and not exactly my cups of tea but let's quit talking and see what all the talk is about:

Nice car though.

[sbw]

AliceH, I trundled overto EMG's website following your excellent quotation and found other pieces that seem ubiquitous denigrating twaddle. Does he stand for more than being supercilious?

[Porchlight]

Mr. Santorum loves, for instance, to highlight his plans to triple the child tax credit—out-and-out social policy clearly rooted in his desire to increase childbirth.

In that society of our betters known as France, they have been for years paying people to have children via various credits and services to parents. It's not working at the rate they need it to, but it's hardly a sign of theocracy on the rise.

As Mark Steyn put it so aptly, "the design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birth rate to sustain it."

[jimmyk]

Meritocracy does not equal credentialism.

Bingo. And TC made a similar point earlier. The biggest problem with the credentialed is their exaggerated belief in their own problem-solving abilities, which leads to a central planning mentality. Or as Ronaldus Maximus put it (regarding liberals, but it applies here):

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so."

[Porchlight]

For a plumber, look to his last major plumbing job; for a president, the best bet is his last major executive government experience.

Hear hear, Cecil (to your entire comment).

I may also add that Mrs. Palin's last executive government experience, though she cut it short, was in its 2 1/2 years more impressive than that of the the current GOP candidates put together, as well as (it goes without saying) a thousand times more impressive than that of the incumbent's when he was elected.

[jimmyk]

It's not working at the rate they need it to, but it's hardly a sign of theocracy on the rise.

And if we see what is happening demographically in Europe and Japan, it might well be a good idea just on fiscal grounds to preempt that and encourage people to have more children. I'd rather do away with SS and Medicare as we know them, but there's something to be said for "belts and suspenders."

[NK]

jimmyK/TC-- completely agree with the clear distinction between meritocracy and credentialism. I wouldn't hire Turbo Timmy Geithner to repair a broken lawn mower, and yet he's former NY Fed pres and US Treasury secy. He has credentials, but no merit.

[Captain Hate]

How did TK get tied in with Denise Milani? Although if it's literally true, I can see why he'd be scarce around here for at least a while.

[Neo]

Hitting Iran must not be far off.

The U.S. government has offered to help India get alternative supplies for Iranian crude as it looks to squeeze the Persian Gulf producer’s oil revenue, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.

The U.S. may help broker deals with suppliers such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia, the people said, declining to be identified because the information is confidential. Saudi Arabia has already offered to replace Iranian oil supplies if needed, two of the people said. The U.S. is in talks with countries around the world on reducing their dependence on Iranian oil, Victoria Nuland, a spokeswoman at the State Department in Washington, said in an e-mail yesterday.