Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Cruising the Web

Mona Charen refutes the storyline that there is some sort of Republican establishment that is forcing the GOP electorate to select Romney. Just who is in that establishment? It never made sense.
The Republican Establishment, like the “international community,” is more of a figment than a reality. Whom did the so-called establishment support in 2008? Do conservative voters believe that Republican elites somehow engineered the selection of the least loyal and reliable Republican in the U.S. Senate? And how did that work exactly? John McCain was considered the frontrunner in early 2007. Yet by the summer he was languishing in the polls and so broke that he was forced to take out loans. Was it the establishment that earned McCain the nomination or was it the fact that Rudolph Giuliani ran a terrible campaign, Fred Thompson never got airborne, and Mike Huckabee undermined Mitt Romney’s Iowa sling-shot strategy?


Jay Cost looks at the data and demonstrates that those who voted for Romney yesterday fit the same demographic framework as those who voted for him last time.
Thus, Iowa is a metaphor for the whole 2012 Republican nomination campaign. It is not as though Mitt Romney has increased the breadth or depth of his support relative to 2012. At least not yet. Instead, his advantage is due primarily to the weakness of his opposition.

Richard Epstein highlights an interesting attempt to challenge rent control laws before the Supreme Court.

Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter, grades the GOP candidates on their speaking ability.

2 comments:

foxmarks said...

Those who can’t see the Republican establishment are probably part of it.

It is not a formal organization nor a shadowy conspiracy. It is a rhetorical construction to describe eager compromisers and risk-averse factions who put loyalty to party above integrity to principle.

John A said...

Rent control again. In some cases I may be for it - I do not wanr ro sudddenly make a 97-year-old having rent increase from 1943 to 2012 value - bit mostly it should have had some end-time (three years?) other than perpetual (not just life, but inheritable? Gadzooks!).

I am mostly with Justice Scalia on this, if a government wants to subsidize rent it should do so by paying the difference (e.g. Section 8 vouchers). Does it increase rent at "elderly housing" and other government dwellings? Yes! Does it tax the owners of rent-controlled properties at "sales market" [assessed] rather than "generated net income?" Sure thing.

The disconnect has been blatant for more than half a century. But any "fix" would be as painful as taking a bandage off a child's skinned lnee, and politicians do not want to cause pain that does not rise to at least the level of an amputation.