Why Did Sarah Quit?

Sarah Palin’s surprise announcement today that she would not serve out her term as Alaska governor not only interrupted the nonstop coverage of Michael Jackson’s funeral arrangements, but the media’s holiday weekend plans as well. In between high-fiving each other, they are asking why. Naturally, many speculated that there is some scandal about to break; some even question if she is pregnant again.

They also wonder, what does this do to her future plans? Will being labeled as a quitter put an end to whatever presidential aspirations she has, they ask breathlessly? Those wishing to be charitable suggest that this frees up her time to challenge Lisa Murkowski in a Republican senatorial primary next year. And of course, they note, there’s always the possibility that she really does regret the time away from her family and wants to step out of the public eye for a while.

However, except for the scandal theory, none of those alternatives explain the apparent suddenness of the decision. And in view of the thorough examination of every aspect of her and her family’s lives that has already been done, it’s hard to see how they can have any secrets.

If taken at face value, her rambling announcement, may have given some honest insights. Palin blamed the amount of time that it cost her to defend herself against baseless ethics complaints and the fact that this was “not fair to the state, not fair to her family … I can’t allow all that time and millions of dollars to go to waste just so that I can hold the title of governor.” The media, used to self-serving statements from politicians, naturally discounted the possibility that she might actually be sincere in the inference that the Lieutenant Governor could be in a better position to fulfill the responsibilities of governance than she could. (“A good point guard … keep[ing] her eye on the basket, knows when it is time to pass the ball … for victory”)

Maybe she really didn’t feel right drawing a governor’s paycheck while not being able to do her job effectively. As she keeps telling us, she’s not into “politics as usual”. Her unconventional, shoot from the hip style has worked for her in the past, and she assured her listeners this was not a hasty decision.

Her intentions are unknown at this point, but it does appear she has a plan, i.e. “I’m taking my fight for what’s right for Alaska in a new direction.” Almost surely, what’s right for Alaska involves energy production. That has been her signature issue, and it is at the heart of America’s most contentious current problems. Middle-eastern wars, global “warming”, California bankruptcy, government control of auto companies and the cost of living are all wholly or partially due to energy policies. Even the subprime mortgage crisis was influenced by a dollar weakened by the negative balance of trade. Sensible energy policies – the opposite of what the current administration and congress are offering – would cure a lot of what ails the nation.

What if … she is offended by each and every day bringing a new outrage against her values and beliefs? What if … she fears American institutions are at risk from a bunch of statists? What if … she fears time is running out and she has decided she must begin a populist campaign in favor of energy independence, smaller government, national security and freedom?

Once no longer constrained by being on a public payroll, she would be more free to speak out against what she sees as threats. She attracts crowds wherever she speaks, she has promised to campaign for like-minded candidates, she makes news – she may be the ideal person to capitalize on tea-party populism.

Opponents will try to brand her as irrational or a quitter. Her political future may be a long shot but she’s faced long odds before. In fact she revels in them.

The MSM has been asking for months now, who leads the Republican party, by which I guess they mean, who is willing to take on President Obama? What if …they should be careful what they wish for?

Support for an Idea I'd Always Suspected to be the Case

The Washington Times is reporting that there is a rather high correlation between domestic vehicle ownership and conservative political identification, along with a corresponding correlation between foreign vehicle ownership and liberal political identification.

As you might have gathered from the title of this post, I don't find this particularly surprising. But, it does lead me to what I think is an interesting queary. What, if any, effect will this have on General Motors and Chrysler as wards of the state? I foresee a couple of possibilities:

1.) There will be a flip-flop in purchasing, with those of liberal political identification seeing the success of the domestic auto industry as tied to their political fortunes. Moreover, buoyed by the government mandates that require the domestics to make electric and more fuel efficient vehicles, the embrace the domestics in a feel-good bear-hug. Simultaneously, conservatives more or less abandon the domestics, seeing their success as a rallying cry of success for the liberal agenda. Moreover, they have real philosophical problems with such heavy-handed government influence/control in any industry.

2.) Conservatives behave as described in #1. They pull back from the domestics. Lingering loyalty mutes the trend for some time, but the trend becomes unmistakeable as quality declines. Liberals still won't buy them for the same reasons they don't now.

This Would Likely Be My Dream Job

Pajamas Media is going to force me...

...to subscribe to them if Bill Whittle keeps putting out stuff like this.

The worldwide staff of T'n'T are car people. More specifically, we are Big Three car people. Watching what may be the death rattles of Chrysler, and, particularly, General Motors, has been quite difficult. For me, GM loyalty runs deep.

On the paternal side, Dad was an industrial engineer with the General. So, in my youth, General Motors put food on the table, a roof over my head, and kept me in Levi's, Nikes, and the occassional Coke Shirt. We lived about twenty miles outside of Dayton, Ohio. Back in the 70's and early 80's, Dayton was essentially a company town for the General. There were something like six or seven plants in town.

One plant, in the industrial area of Loraine, was the final assembly plant for Chevy S-10 pick-ups. Watching a car get put together is like the world's most awesome jigsaw puzzle. It is both science and art--creating something that is an object of both passion and utility. There was a point where the body assebly line and the frame assembly line merged. The bodes would come from up high and get dropped down onto the lower line that the frames were on, all while both continued to move forward. It's an industrial tango of equisite angles and timing. I never met someone who couldn't stand there and watch it all day in wonder. If I ever actually met a guy who didn't think that was simply awesome, I'd probably punch him in the face.

Mom's contribution to the GM-love has always been more about the cool factor. She has said to me, that if she ever became independently wealthy she wouldn't buy a big house. Nope. She says she'd build a seven-car garage and have a new Corvette, a classic Corvette Stingray, a Camaro, a Cadillac Escalade, a Cadillac CTS, a Pontiac Solstice, and a Chevrolet Silverado or Avalanche. Basically, it'd be a car for every day of the week.

Mom and I share an appreciation for Corvettes. I remember one time when we were driving home from a Cincinnati Reds game up I-75. There was a guy in a Corvette that was weaving in and out of traffic. I watched out the rear window as he came up behind us, pulled out and then went around us. Moments later I heard Mom yell, "Oh God, no! Not the Corvette." I looked and saw it do a 180 and slide off the highway backwards into ditch. As we passed and saw the driver slap his hands against the steering wheel in frustration, Mom says, "Whew. Good, it doesn't look like he did much damage to the 'Vette."

So, what's the point of my ramblings? Well, it's this. As P.J. O'Rourke discusses in this WSJ column is that a big part of what went wrong with the American automotive industry is that it lost, because we as Americans lost, the love affair with the auto.

I fear that once the "G" in GM stands for "Government" rather than "General", that what remaining passion roams the halls of the Renaissance Center will be squeezed out. Who could possibly want a car brought to you by the same people who bring you the Post Office and the Social Security Administration. When plant expansion or closing decision don't just have politica considerations, but are considered political in their entirety, how long will it be before we have an empty plant in southwestern Pennsylvania named for John Murtha. And when the broad parameters of design, engineering, and salemanship are driven by the whims of a Congressional committee, I suspect it won't be long before we are asked to buy Chevrolet Algores that are as bloated and content-free as their namesake.

Where do we go from here? Well, I hope that the General comes out of this on the other side as a still viable entity. I hope that it doesn't go the way of British Leyland.

But, more immediately, I'm going to do my part to remember how much I love cars. I'm going to encourage the rather unhealthy man-crush that I have for my car by driving around tomorrow for no particular purpose with the sun-roof open, the windows down, and the Beach Boys blaring and an ear-drum shattering volume. I encourage all of you to do the same.

What is Inflation

I love this article on the fine line that the Fed runs when it comes to figuring out how much money to print. I like to think and, frequently, write in analogies because I think that it helps flesh out difficult concepts. And that's what this article did for me.

I would say that the gist is that it may be possible for the Fed to avoid big time inflation in the coming years (though not probably this year) in spite of the massive money printing and debt-taking we are doing right now. But, it isn't going to be easy. Oh no. It won't be easy.

Des Moines Tea Party

Chad and I made it over to the front lawn of the Iowa State Capitol for the Des Moines Tea Party. Pretty good crowd. Chad estimated maybe 3000. I thought maybe 2000 to 2500. KCCI, citing the Iowa State Patrol, agreed with Chad. The Des Moines Register, of course, came up with a much lower number.

Chad and I rolled in about 11:30 AM. We walked the last couple blocks up to the Capitol with a nice guy who was wearing a tie-dye shirt, a macrame knit cap, and carrying a guitar. He stated that he didn't understand why people of the right would be called totalitarians or fascists when we wanted less government. I had to agree with that. He indicated that he wouldn't mind living out of a bus that ran on bio-diesel so that he wouldn't have to use any money for rent or utilities. While I would wish him the best of luck, I'm not entirely convinced that I could make that work.

The crowd was large and well-behaved. As we walked up, they were introducing a new speaker, an elderly gentleman who spoke mostly about abortion, though he did get some points in about lower taxes. To my mind, the crowd was receptive and in agreement, but no really getting into his talk.

The next gentleman spoke with a bit of a drawl and was more on point with the tenor of the crowd. He was four-square behind lower taxes and not over-burdening future generations through government debt. I thought he got several more applause lines than the earlier speaker.

We took a moment to sing America the Beautiful. And then had a woman from a local relgious AM radio station. She too spoke mostly about social issues, but got her best applause lines when she ventured into low taxes.

The fourt speaker was introduced as a pastor's wife and small business owner. She focused almost entirely on the small business angle and how taxes thwart the growth of small businesses.

By this time, it was about 12:30 and a return to work beckoned. We ran into one of Chad's neighbors who described the crowd as, "A lot of disaffected conservatives and libertarians, a lot of Ron Paul supporters, and a few black helicopter types." That seemed about right to me.

I did take two or three pictures. And if I can figure out how to get them uploaded on here, I'll do so.

Update: Photos

Here's sort of a distance picture. It's kind of hard to see everyone because they are curving downhill and away from where Chad and I were standing.



Then for these next three I zoomed and took three shots panning from my left to right.

Davenport Tea Party

A crowd of as many as 500 angry, but well-behaved citizens gathered at the corner of 4th and Main Streets in downtown Davenport Iowa to mark this tax-filing day of 2009. Most carried hand-made signs and a few waved traditional “Don’t Tread On Me” and large American flags. There were no speakers or organized activities, but while most of the crowd milled around on one or another of the corners, two groups of 20-30 people started chanting and marching around the intersection. It was typical of this largely conservative-oriented crowd that the marchers only crossed with the lights and obeyed all traffic signals. These are not the right-wing extremists that DHS warned us about.

I liked this sign best

The local news media was on hand but didn’t stay long when it became apparent that violence was unlikely. The only signs I saw of counterprotesters were one brave jackass yelling down from the safety of a fifth-story window and one motorist flipping off the gathering. Many, perhaps as much as a third of the passing cars honked their horns and/or gave thumbs-up signals in support of the occasion. (In all honesty, it did seem that I was seeing some of the same vehicles more than once.)

By 1:30 much of the crowd had drifted off, many explaining that they had to get back to work. Protesting is fine, but unlike leftist rent-a-mobs, the people who were at this event have better things to do.

The Forgotten Power

Here is a really interesting column on India, briefly outlining the diplomatic successes that the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations had, and the pitfalls of the current administration's dalliances in the region.

We don't hear nearly enough about India. It is the world's most populous democracy, a nuclear power, and just about a complete mystery to most Americans.

A Public Service Reminder for Iowa Voters

While Iowa's Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature, they have to stand for approval by the voters periodically in what are called "retention elections". They do not have opponents in these elections; they are simple up or down votes as to whether they should serve another term.

The current justices will be up for re-approval in November elections per the following schedule:

2010: Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, Associate Justices Michael Streit and David Baker
2012: Associate Justice David Wiggins
2016: Associate Justices Mark Cady, Daryl Hecht and Brent Appel

Daylight Savings Time

I've taken a shot at Daylight Savings Time before. One of the ways DST is sold is with some old analysis that it saved energy. I always found that odd because as my earlier post said, there is no extra hour of sunlight. It's just moved from the morning to the evening.

And now, I find that perhaps my skepticism was warranted as described in this Wall Street Journal article, a new study shows that Indiana counties that adopted DST over the last few years actually saw their energy usage go up, no down as we are told should occur.

There's nothing inherently wrong with moving the clock. In the modern world, we don't work in fields and our morning start times are set by the office clock rather than the farmer's crow of a rooster. So, if in the modern world we'd rather have our three or four hours of post-work sunlight extended rather than having that hour added to the hour or so we have in the morning, that's entirely rational. Just don't tell me that we actually get an extra hour of light and I'm not convinced that that we save a bunch of money by doing so.

Bush Retrospective, Part 9

The Torch Passes…

My congratulations and best wishes go to the 44th President of the United States as he confronts his many challenges.

Overseas, there are still troops in harm’s way in two countries. While things in Iraq are looking up, Afghanistan – which is technically a NATO operation – continues to be problematic.

It is ironic that initially Afghanistan was a model of success precisely because the United States worked with local tribes and proxy forces, augmenting them with critical intelligence and fires capabilities. We should have applied more of this model to Iraq from the onset, rather than waiting for several years and suffering thousands of casualties. [snip] It is important to recognize that the relatively more peaceful areas of the country in the north are also the areas that have enjoyed the most local control. This is no coincidence.

Other nations represent threats or concerns that may escalate without warning. Iran continues to work on the bomb, Pakistan already has the bomb and an unstable government. North Korea has the bomb and a willingness to sell it for hard cash. Russia and Venezuela are increasingly belligerent; China has a huge, disproportionably male, population with growing material demands; the list goes on and on.

Terrorist organizations still want to do us harm. If President Obama is to continue Bush’s seven+ year record of preventing terror attacks on the homeland, he will gain a new-found respect for the surveillance and interrogation methods Bush emplaced. He will be supported by all the BDS sufferers who will be relieved now that the tools are in more trustworthy hands. He may even conclude that the detainees at Guantanamo are there for some very good reasons.

Gaza is a festering sore, just as it was in 2001 and 1993 and 1989 and all the way back to the partitioning of Palestine. There is a solution to the problem, but it requires the cooperation of the United Nations: “Stop funding a Palestinian youth bulge, and the fighting will stop too.”

On the domestic front, there is the 800 lb. gorilla of a financial crisis. We are not yet in a depression – unemployment, inflation and the stock market were worse during the Carter administration, for example – but there is a lack of confidence in our financial institutions and a disturbing tendency of attacking all problems by throwing money at them. That the money does not exist and must be conjured out of thin air is what lends a potential for permanence to the crisis.

At this point, President Obama’s financial strategy resembles that of Franklin Roosevelt. Recall that the Great Depression went on for eight years under FDR and only ended with World War II. There are other proposals, and the president did say he was open to other suggestions. He has a big decision to make as the day approaches when the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire.

Health care is a large part of the economy that Democrats have long hoped to take over. Obama campaigned on a promise to give Americans an additional choice beside employer paid plans, private insurance and going without. If you liked what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did for housing, you’ll love a public/private collaboration on health care. May the new administration move cautiously in this area.

Energy consumption and sources, particularly oil, affect a surprising number of our problems. The price and availability of oil have a multiplier effect on the economy. High oil prices mean high transportation costs which means everything costs more*. Oil shortages mean more revenue for the most despotic and troublesome foreign regimes. A tight world oil market literally puts a gun in the hand of oil producers which they can point at the heads of their customers. A healthy and growing domestic oil industry will be more necessary than ever considering who controls oil in the rest of the world.

President Obama campaigned on the promise of moving toward alternative energy sources. He would be well advised to listen to former Clinton advisor Dick Morris, who suggests he put an economist in charge of the Department of Energy. It would not promote the general welfare to replace 3 cent per kilowatt-hour electricity from coal with 10 cent/kwh from solar power.

President Obama faces a daunting task in so many areas, but he can call on 300,000,000 of the toughest, smartest, most creative and most industrious people in the world. Given the proper incentives, (such as keeping the fruits of their own labor) these people can solve any problem. Given the proper motivation, (such as expecting a better life for our children) we can outlast any adversary. Given support (such as the rule of law) for the can-do attitude that made America great for over 200 years, we certainly are good for another 200 years.

May God bless America and its new president, Barack Obama.


*Added a link I'd left out - sorry

Bush Retrospective, Part 8

The “Worst Crisis since the Great Depression”

With the economy already reeling from high gasoline prices, the resultant price inflation and slowing demand, there were increasing signs that the housing bubble was ready to pop. Subprime lenders such as giant Countrywide Financial had already collapsed. Bear Stearns was bought out for $2 per share in March of 2008 and only because the US government was willing to offer $30 billion in loan guarantees.

On June 26, Senator Schumer (D-NY) wrote a letter to IndyMac Bank, expressing concern about its viability. A copy of the letter went to Bloomberg News, and within eleven days, panicked depositors had pulled $1.3 billion worth of deposits out of the shaky bank, sealing its fate.

On September 7, the federal government officially took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These Government Sponsored Entities (GSE’s), a public/private amalgamation held or guaranteed about half of the $12 trillion American housing market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Ground Zero for the entire subprime meltdown.

As the bodies of dead mortgage companies and purchasers of bundled securities piled up, the economic crisis spread worldwide. In a desperate attempt to head off a complete collapse of the economy of the US and the entire world, Bush asked for and Congress passed legislation entitled “Troubled Assets Relief Program” (TARP) to enable Treasury Secretary Paulson to spend $700 billion to buy the so-called “toxic assets”. Nevertheless, the stock market which had lost 40 percent of its October, 2007 value, remained in the doldrums.

As of this writing, the government continues to be receptive to bailout requests from seemingly every area of the economy. Pledging $800 billion here and $350 billion there with money it doesn’t have there is no end in sight. It may well be that the economic devastation would have been worse without the bailouts, but the fallout from this incredible increase in US debt is incalculable and may inflict permanent damage.

The pertinent question for us here is, “How much of this is George Bush’s fault?” There are three areas where he has culpability for at least part of the problem. Thus far, all of the blame has been dumped on him, whether deserved or not.
1. He supported low interest rates and the concept of broadening home ownership widely.
2. He appointed Hank Paulson and others and followed their advice.
3. He failed to yell loudly enough when he believed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed regulatory overhaul, and to keep yelling when Congress refused to act.

There are some other culpable parties:
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977
The 1995 revisions to the CRA
Cheap money policies by the Fed
ACORN
The concept of (GSE’s) joining private profit with public risk
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives, such as Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick and James Johnson who pocketed millions in bonuses
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Congressman Barnie Frank (D-MA)
Other members of congressional committees, who took big campaign contributions from, and blocked regulation of, Fannie and Freddie
Greedy lenders and mortgage bundlers such as Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo, and the Sandlers, spoofed in that SNL skit that has been pulled down. (Kudos to those responsible lenders who maintained their standards.)

All in all, the evidence will show that neither George Bush nor de-regulation (i.e., Gramm-Leach-Bliley) is at the root of this crisis. The Democrats are up to their ears in this mess, and guess what. Now that they own the whole government, they get to fix it - or compound it. But don’t take just my word for it.

What I do blame the Bush administration for is not speaking out – in being so unifying and above the fray and classy that he wouldn’t try to defend himself. But it’s an old pattern, as Andy McCarthy documents here.

From the days of the Florida recount when Al Gore tried to steal the election from him, George Bush has responded to every smear and attack with class and good humor. “If you can’t speak well of someone, speak not at all,” is the credo of a gentleman. Unfortunately, it’s also the habit of a president with a 30% approval rating and a legacy in the hands of his opponents.

Neither Bush nor Republican presidential nominee John McCain sought to place any blame for the subprime collapse on the Democrats. If they had made an effort to defend free markets and limited government and explain how Big Government intervention distorted the housing market, the election might have turned out differently. For a brief period after the convention, and before he foolishly decided to suspend his campaign in an unsuccessful effort to persuade House Republicans to pass a bailout bill, John McCain was actually leading the presidential polls.

But maybe neither would defend limited government because they both believe in government intervention. “When someone is hurting, it’s up to government to help” is the definition of Compassionate conservatism.

That's capital ‘C’ compassionate; small ‘c’ conservative.