One of the primary talking points of Mr Obama’s campaign is that what is needed (as a change) are “smart” policies. But there is a fundamental problem with that, it’s wrong. Let’s start with this quote which is in line with what I’m trying to say:

America’s regulatory structure is mostly the child of the Progressive Era, when well meaning, well educated protestants thought that they could save the world by putting bright technocrats from the right kind of families in charge of the messy, sprawling economy and make it clean and tidy and safe.  That sounds sarcastic, but it wasn’t entirely unreasonable. The first great victory of the Progressive Era, the major revolutions in public health, did just that:  made life safer and nicer for everyone, with minimal inconvenience, by putting experts in charge of things like sanitation and quarantine and the water supply.  Before Hayek, we didn’t have all that much reason to think that this feat couldn’t be repeated elsewhere.

But now we have had Hayek, and the failure of the Soviet Union, and a hundred other ways to learn that in any sizeable economy, the information problem is simply too big.  Even leaving out the various incentive problems ably detailed by both Marxists and public choice economics, a well-intentioned bureaucrat cannot know enough about what’s going on in the world to thoroughly manage even a static economy, much less one that has to cope with millions of constant changes, from hurricanes to new babies.

In the context of the current financial kerfuffle, an oft noted claim has been that what is needed is “better smarter regulation.” As if that will somehow so fundamentally change the market structure so that risk will not be taken and occasionally those risk takers will overreach. Economic and social management cannot be done by “being smarter” as the complexity the problem means it is intractable. The only solution is to yield control. The setting of policy has to be done by the millions not by the hundreds of experts. Individually those experts may be nominally smarter than a great majority (but likely not all) of the millions for whom their decisions are replacing. But the complexity of modern society means the problems and issues cannot be comprehended by any single or group of experts no matter how smart they are.

What is not needed is an Executive who believes he can either by himself or a counciliar consensus of “experts” figure out the “solution” to the problems that will face him. This is exactly the opposite of what we need. We don’t need a smart leader who thinks (or knows) he’s smart and is seeking an inteligent solution. We need a wise leader who knows he isn’t smart and the best he can do is to suggest a direction and perceptive enough to notice which of us have figured out a “better way” and pass the word.

From Bruce McQuain at Q&O, comes a quiz:

1.  Who identified and tried to fix what presently ails Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae 5 years ago?

2.  Who opposed the plan, saying they were not in any kind of financial crisis?

McQuain gives a hint as to what the answer to #2 is; the same folks who say Social Security is just fine, and Medicare is doing well, too.  Bruce has a link to a contemporaneous New York Times article that explains the proposal and the smack down. 

Remember this when Dem…er, certain politicians try to place blame for this and try to use it as a campaign gimmick.

Everybody says they want more politicians in office that fight corruption, wasteful spending, and are willing to go after their own party to do it.  Yet Sarah Palin is continually talked down by Democrats, who’s concerns about corruption seem to have taken a holiday.

Now comes word that their concerns about bipartisanship — about both parties working together — is also on vacation.

Sen. John McCain’s record of working with Democrats easily outstrips Sen. Barack Obama’s efforts with Republicans, according to an analysis by The Washington Times of their legislative records.

Whether looking at bills they have led on or bills they have signed onto, Mr. McCain has reached across the aisle far more frequently and with more members than Mr. Obama since the latter came to the Senate in 2005.

In fact, by several measures, Mr. McCain has been more likely to team up with Democrats than with members of his own party. Democrats made up 55 percent of his political partners over the last two Congresses, including on the tough issues of campaign finance and global warming. For Mr. Obama, Republicans were only 13 percent of his co-sponsors during his time in the Senate, and he had his biggest bipartisan successes on noncontroversial measures, such as issuing a postage stamp in honor of civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

Democrats say that they want bipartisanship, and indeed have praised McCain’s overtures to them in the past.  But all of a sudden, that seems to be ancient history.

Now, I will say that I’m not entirely a big fan of some of McCain’s bipartisanship. McCain-Feingold “First Amendment Abridgement Act” (my name for it, not theirs) is a prime example.  But outside the campaign season, politician and voter alike keep complaining about how all this bickering in Washington keeps them from doing “the people’s business”.  But here we are, with the most bipartisan politician for President I think we may have ever seen, and suddenly Democrats have lost all interest in it.

Oh, and Sarah Palin is also quite adept with respect to bipartisanship, getting a 75% job approval rating from Alaska Democrats.  Congress can only dream of such high numbers.

Guess “bipartisanship” just means “doing what I want you to do”.

The media has seemed to take Obama’s side in McCain’s ad accusing the Democrat of signing a bill that would bring “comprehensive sex education” to children as young as kindergarten.  The Obama camp called this a lie, that it was mostly about inappropriate touching at the young ages, and the media have played it that way.

Except that, as Byron York notes, when you actually read the bill and speak to its cosponsors (well, the one he could ever contact about it), that’s not necessarily the case.  Now, Obama may have had his own reasons for voting for the bill, but as York summarizes:

But we do know that the bill itself was much more than that. The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten.  Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.

Read the whole thing(tm).

The Corner today points out a interesting survey done by David Frum. The Corner poster, Jim Manzi does some additional statistical musing and comes to a similar conclusion. However, this should cause a lot of consternation and navel gazing by anyone considers right vs left or conservative vs liberal a straightforward set piece ideological struggle. Consider that post in the light of two additional pieces of data:

1. This divide has been stable for some time.
2. and locally speaking therefore the policies set in place must therefore be supporting the stability of that divide.

The problem is that the Democratic states have been espousing policies that value equality and should be normalizing that which divides us. The GOP is ostensibly the free market party and supports business more and therefore should one would expect would widen the divide between the haves and have-nots.

However, the demographic data contradicts this. The Democrats are stronger in areas that are more divided and the GOP in areas with more equality. If this is stable … then there is an essential problem here.

Which means one might conclude that GOP policies do more to reduce the divisions between us and the Democrats reinforce them. So either politicians of both parties are lying all the time of that everyone is wrong about policy. That is, the policies that are assumed to reduce division in fact acerbate them and which are assumed to divide, don’t.

To restate, if you the reason you are a Democrat is because of the stated desired results that the Democratic platform espouses, you should switch parties because the actual entrenched policies of the other side empirically do what you find desirable and the policies of your party are empirically harmful. If on the other hand, you are rich and you want to get richer (and if it’s at the “expense” of the other guy you don’t care) then you should vote Democratic, because it is their policies which have been most effective at achieving that goal.

Barack Obama’s former employer as a community organizer is at it again, trying to elect their favorite son by any means necessary.

Several municipal clerks across the state are reporting fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications, most of them from a nationwide community activist group working to help low- and moderate-income families.

The majority of the problem applications are coming from the group ACORN, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which has a large voter registration program among its many social service programs. ACORN’s Michigan branch, based in Detroit, has enrolled 200,000 voters statewide in recent months, mostly with the use of paid, part-time employees.

“There appears to be a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications,” said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State’s Office. “And it appears to be widespread.”

But ACORN is an equal-opportunity defrauder.  Michigan isn’t singled out.

In recent years, ACORN’s voter registration programs have come under investigation in Ohio, Colorado, Missouri and Washington, with some employees convicted of voter fraud.

ACORN officials said they were looking into the problem.

Indeed, with conclusions, no doubt, some time after election day.

I was going to put a blog post together on this issue, but Dan Spencer at Redstate has done so, and with links to keep you busy for quite some time.

Among his list of things Palin has done on the earmark front, and contrasted with Obama:

• She ordered her administration to cut the number of earmarks (including the “Bridge to Nowhere”).
• He consistently supported said bridge, even refusing to redirect funds for it to Katrina victims.
• She significantly reduced the number and dollar value of earmarks to the state of Alaska.
• She vetoed nearly $500 million in government spending over 2 years
• He has requested nearly $1 billion in earmarks over 3 years.

We’ve hit this topic before on SCO, but Danny Carlton pointed me to a Clinton forum where folks are speaking out as to why they’re going to vote McCain.

He especially notes this post, wherein a socially liberal woman lists all her reasons for supporting the McCain/Palin ticket.  Yes, it’s mostly over Palin, but not just because she’s a woman.

I have always voted Democrat, I was a strong Hillary supporter, I am pro-choice, socially liberal, pro GLBT and I am so proud to be supporting the McCain/Palin ticket!

I plan to send in $$ when I can to the McCain campaign. I can’t tell you how thrilled I am the McCain choose Palin as his running mate. I love the fact that she is considered a reformer, has tackled corruption in high places, has Executive experience, a watchdog for our tax dollars, a woman who is comfortable doing stuff with her hands and isn’t afraid to take the lead! We have been given a present from above. It can’t get any better!!

This may not completely clear up how many women may be making the switch to the GOP for this election, but it does help answer some of the “Why?” questions.

Some time ago, I suggested an alternative debating format, which would certainly make for a more interesting (and informative) evening. The format would go something like this:

moderator: The next topic will be educational reform. Mr Obama you are to begin. Please explain briefly Mr McCain’s position on what needs to be done to improve our educational system. You have three minutes, which will alternate with one minute corrections from Mr McCain until you are both satisfied.

[The two exchange]

moderator: Now, Mr Obama that you established an understanding of Mr McCain’s stand, you have 3 minutes to rebut that position.

Then … they reverse and Mr McCain explains Mr Obama’s position until Mr Obama is satisfied he has successfully explained it. And Mr McCain gets a short rebuttal of that.

And then of course, they move on the the next topic.

What this avoids of course is the endless arguments we so often find, where one side rebuts a position not held by the other and vice versa. It also means that at least two people (the candidates themselves) and perhaps several in the audience as well will finally come to understand the arguments and motivations of the otehr side instead of just demonizing a caricature of the same said position.

If Barack Obama loses the election this November (and at this point it’s impossible to say whether he will – it’s too close to call) it will be because of a series of unforced errors. They are missteps in the campaign that when taken individually don’t seem like a huge issue but when combined have the effect of totally derailing what would have otherwise been a hugely successful campaign.

Read the rest of this entry

Ed Brayton, normally quite accurate in his reporting, titles a post of his, Another Palin Lie. Ed states,

And Stephen Foley, at The Independent, has an article titled, Sale of Alaska’s state jet on eBay revealed as a lie. From Foley’s article,

Yet, here are the lines from Sarah Palin’s speech, at the RNC, in which she references said plane:

That’s it. No other references to the sale of the jet was made in her speech. Astute observers will note that she does not state that the plane was sold on eBay, nor does she state that it was sold for a profit.

It ain’t there, fellas.

Do you think, just a thought here, that her intentions (at that point in the speech) were to emphasize her attitude towards wasteful spending, and not to give a detailed accounting report of how Alaska unloaded it’s luxury jet?

Did she imply, in her RNC speech, that she had actually sold the plane on eBay? Could be. Yet, did any intrepid journalists or Democratic party operatives, armed with the not-so-secret data of the plane’s actual sale, trap Palin by asking her for specific data on how the plane was sold? Are you kidding? That would mean actually trying to get to the truth of the matter.

Truth be told, we must rewrite Foley’s paragraph, from above, as follows:

Sarah Palin bolstered her reputation as a reformer – and got one of her biggest cheers in her Republican convention speech last week – when she said she had sold put the governor’s official jet on eBay as her first act on taking office in Alaska.

Words… just words.

Note: However, John McCain’s statement, referenced above, seems to be a different matter entirely. Maybe he should just let Sarah speak for herself.

…in Chicago.

An estimated 123 people were shot and killed over the summer. That’s nearly double the number of soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.

Waiting for Obama to call for the troops police to pull out.  It’s lost, right?

I am very thankful to have to intelligent, active, and attentive (liberal) contributors (in comments) on this blog. Various particulars relating to snippits as they come out concerning “Who is Gov. Palin” have been up for discussion. While we can go back and forth quibbling over details, still at this point seen quite dimly, it occurs to me there is an over-arching issue up hiding in the wings.

Most of what has been coming in fits and starts from the media sources (and for that matter the campaign) have been negative (and positive) pieces largely unconnected from context. This is alas, counter from the enterprise in which we are all engaged regarding the good governor.

In the context of the election with regards to all four candidates what the rest of us are trying to do is to build a holistic picture of the candidates as a person, to figure out their political and moral philosophies. Who are they? How do they think? How do they appreciate and consider the issues facing the nation?

This problem is made more complicated by the fact that the candidates and the press are aware of this exercise on our part and are intentionally trying to frame that image in a way that is perceived by us as favorable (in the case of the candidates) or unfavorable (in the case of partisan factions). The mechanisms that the press and press releases operate however is antithetical to the process at which the rest of are engaged. The modern press operates on sound bites, catch phrases and other short bites (bytes?).

What we seek however is a holostic ensemble view of the candidate. The challenge for the voter is to fight through this morass of annoying scattered flotsam and to assemble that image. My suggestion (which I’m about to follow more consciously) is to disregard in the main those details provided sans context.