By Ronald J. Granieri, on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET  Ron Granieri: Rebuttal #3
[The RP’s Provocation; Jason Atkinson’s Rebuttal #1; The RP’s First Defense: Jason Atkinson’s First Response; Artur Davis’ Rebuttal #2; The RP’s Second Defense; Artur Davis’ First Response]
I have avoided getting into this talk because, amusingly enough, I really do not have a clear opinion.
Like the RP, I have never really smoked weed, but know plenty of people who have and who have not turned into the giggling dope fiends of Reefer Madness. I appreciate the arguments about enforcing existing law, and also the dangers of gateway drugs, but I can also see the argument that decriminalizing small amounts for personal use and regulating the trade would actually be a net plus for the treasury (combining a new tax revenue stream and lower police costs).
I do think, however, that the debate tends to gloss over the important point of social costs. Legalizing weed will require plenty of regulation, and the need for such regulations tends to get lost in all the talk about how awesome it will be to smoke ’em if you got ’em. Proponents of legalization love to point out all the damage that is done by alcohol, and they have a point.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Legalizing Marijuana: Ron Granieri Rebuts
By RP Staff, on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM ET OK, folks, round two of the 2012 GOP presidential primary, which means round two of the fearless predictions of our recovering politicians.
Last week, our RPs boldly made their Iowa caucus prognostications, and with the exception of RP staffer Zack Adams (who predicted the correct finish of the top 6 candidates) and Artur Davis (the only contributing RP to predict the correct order of the top 3), well…let’s say they are lucky to get a second chance. But this web site is all about second acts, right?
And we ask you to join them in the comments section as well. No fun prizes, but instant fame and glory to the reader who is the closest.
So, here goes the New Hampshire experiment:
The RP: Romney 39; Paul 19; Huntsman 17; Santorum 12; Gingrich 11; Roemer 1; Perry less than 1%. Ron Paul let me down — big time — last week, but I still have confidence that the independents will keep him in a solid second place. And I predict that the media darling, John Huntsman, will underperform. And my big surprise: Buddy Roemer ekes out 6th place from under Rick Perry’s nose. Oh, yeah, and Mitt Romney wins big. Yawn.
Paul Hodes (contributing RP and former New Hampshire Congressman): Here goes from the Granite State…Romney 34; Huntsman 19; Paul 18; Gingrich 14; Santorum 12; Perry 3
Zac Byer (RP Staff): 1st – Mitt Romney (32%); 2nd – Ron Paul (19%); 3rd – Jon Huntsman (15%). [Click here to read his Zac’s full report from Manchester, New Hampshire.]
Jason Grill: 1. Romney (Needs at least 35% or a 10 point win); 2. Huntsman (The candidate with the best chance to beat President Obama in the general); 3. Paul (Another third place finish, but still relevant); 4. Gingrich (Edges out Rick, but Tick…Tick…Tick…SC is next. Boom); 5. Santorum (No Iowa magic tonight); 6. Perry (Already hunkered down in SC for his last stand)
Greg Harris: Romney – 35; Huntsman – 21; Santorum – 16; Paul – 13; Gingrich – 11; Perry – 4
Steve Schulman: With apologies to Frank Sinatra…Mitt Romney – If he can’t win it here, he can’t win it anywhere…Ron Paul – He’ll do it his way…Jon Huntsman – Strangers in the night…Rick Santorum – Please don’t talk about him when he’s gone…Newt Gingrich – Fly him to the moon, let him play among the stars…Rick Perry – Ain’t that a kick in the head…And too bad Michele Bachmann dropped out … that lady is a tramp!
Read the rest of…
The RPs Predict the New Hampshire Primary
By Ronald J. Granieri, on Mon Jan 9, 2012 at 1:00 PM ET  Ron Granieri’s First Response
[John Y.’s Provocation; The RP’s Rebuttal #1; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #2; Rod Jetton’s Rebuttal #3; Krystal Ball’s Rebuttal #4; John Y.’s First Defense; Rod Jetton’s Response #1; Jeff Smith’s Rebuttal #5; John Y.’s Second Defense]
John Y. is right to bring up the power of TV, but I have to play the contrarian idealist for just one more moment.
Everyone loves to make the argument that surface appearance is what matters most in politics, especially when their candidate loses. It is yet another way to assume that the people who vote differently than you are too shallow and superficial to understand the depth and brilliance of your own positions.
It is a dangerous fallacy, though, because it can lead strategists to believe that winning elections ONLY involves the manipulation of images and to forget the significance of the actual political ideas and positions behind them.
Of course it helps to be pleasant and nice looking in most cases. But if sex appeal was all you needed for electoral success, then Sarah Palin would be President, and the RP would be governor of Kentucky. [ED’s note: Aw shucks!] Ask Rick Perry (or, if you want a coherent answer, don’t): it matters what candidates say when they open their pretty mouths.
By Ronald J. Granieri, on Mon Jan 9, 2012 at 9:30 AM ET Rebuttal #2: Ronald J. Granieri
I have a few somewhat related thoughts in response to what has been said so far.
[Read John Y.’s Provocation]
[Read the RP’s Rebuttal]
We need to fight against the persistent myth that being universally respected and loved is the essence of leadership. Obama’s real or feigned belief that he could triumph over all disagreement and be adored by being adorable was doomed from the start. Doomed for the simple reason that making policy means dealing with disagreement. We all want to believe that the positions we take on issues are so self-evidently reasonable that any honest and rational person HAS to agree with us. But that is just a convenient and comforting fiction. More than that, it is also a backhanded way to belittle and insult people who think differently than we do by dismissing them as either stupid or mean-spirited or both.
There are many possible answers to any policy question, and (at the risk of sounding more like a relativist than I am) many of them can be right at the moment. Only in retrospect can we say for certainty what worked and what did not. In the meantime, we will disagree. And that is a good thing, because disagreement is the life blood of a competitive electoral system. It is pure folly to believe that you will get your way because your opponents like you. You get your way by taking clear positions and defending them within the existing system. (Though of course the system itself needs to function properly—that’s my shout out to No Lablesl!) You need to show what you believe, and what you are willing to do in pursuit of those beliefs, not wait for other people to agree with you before you take a position. Your opponents will criticize you no matter what you do (they will call you weak when you defer, and arrogant when you push forward), so why surrender pre-emptively? It is risky to take positions, but there is no reward without risk. True leaders take risks.
This myth of being universally loved is fostered by the hagiographies that come after a famous politician dies. The best example here is President Reagan. Upon his death all we have heard is how terrific he was, and both media personalities and politicians of all stripes have downplayed the controversies of the Reagan era. Frankly, that is an insult to his memory and to anyone with actual historical sense. For all his sunny optimism, Reagan was intensely controversial, and neither his fans nor his detractors do him justice by pretending he was not. Indeed, his opponents often hated him most of all because he was so goddam genial. He pushed hard for things he wanted, made compromises when he thought it made sense to do so, but he did not shy away from decisions in hopes that his opponents would agree with him before he made a move. Anyone who lived through the 1980s knows what the political debates of those years were like.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Presidential Leadership: Ron Granieri Rebuts
By RP Staff, on Tue Jan 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM ET After two years of campaign, hundreds of pundit prognostications, and thousands of cable news sound bites, at long last, what you’ve been waiting for…
Our fearless contributors — Contributing RPs, Friends of RP and RP Staff — offer their predictions for tonight’s Iowa caucuses.
And you can too — please give us your predictions in the Comments section below.
Without further ado…(Click on their name to find out their background)…
The RP: Paul 30%; Romney 25%; Santorum 21%; Gingrich 7%; Perry 6%; Bachmann 4%, Huntsman 1%. I don’t think Rick “Man On Dog” Santorum’s organization is strong enough to take advantage of his surge. I also think Paul’s support is underestimated in the polls because his grassroots support is so fervant, and the tin foil hat crowd among his followers are fearful of pollsters. Remember Pat Robertson?
Michael Steele: Click here for his exclusive-to-The-RP report from Iowa.
Jeff Smith: Santorum 27; Romney 23; Paul 23; Perry 11; Gingrich 9; Bachmann 6. I think some Bachmann/Gingrich/Perry folks walk in to their caucus, see how outnumbered they are by Sant-mentum, and get on the bandwagon.
Jason Grill: Romney, Paul, and Santorum will finish first, second, and third. The order though is more “up in the air” than George Clooney was in his recent Oscar nominated movie. Organization and friends twisting other friends arms at the caucuses will decide the order of the top three. If Romney finishes third that WILL be news and change the race somewhat moving forward. He will be seen as an even weaker front runner if this happens. Also, it will be interesting to see where Perry and Gingrich finish tonight. Keep a lookout for their percentages at the end of the night. A fourth place finish for Perry over Gingrich will signal a potential showdown with Romney in South Carolina. Lastly, I am anxious to see how Huntsman finishes in next week’s New Hampshire primary after skipping Iowa.
Mark Nickolas: Paul (25%); Romney (23%); Santorum (22%); Gingrich (11%); Perry (10%); Bachmann (6%). Iowa requires a level of commitment from supporters unlike anywhere else. Those with the best state organization and strongest levels of commitment do especially well (Paul and Paul). Also, since Independents and Dems can participate if they want to cross over — as Indies did for Obama in ’08 — that’s likely to help Paul the most. Nefarious (aka loyal) Dems are going to support anyone but Romney to ensure a protracted GOP race, with Paul and Santorum benefitting most.
Rod Jetton: I think Ron Paul will just nip Romney and Rick Santorum will get third. Newt probably finishes in 4th. The Ron Paul forces are dedicated and with his numbers going up they and their friends have started believing he can win. They will turn out and surprise all the experts.
Greg Harris: Santorum – 26%; Romney – 25%; Paul – 21%; Gingrich – 12%; Bachman – 8%; Perry – 7%; Huntsman – 1%. Santorum’s diligent grassroots work throughout the State this past year will pay off, resulting in more ardent caucus warriors advocating his case, and moving some on-the-fence Bachman and Perry supporters. Ron Paul’s fanatical base will still assure him over an over 20% showing. The minority moderate voters will hold their noses and back Romney.
Read the rest of…
Our Contributors Predict the Iowa Caucuses…
By David Snyder, on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 8:30 AM ET  I am not involved in the political arena – never have been, never will be. That doesn’t mean I don’t follow what is going on, take an interest in the issues and exercise my constitutional right to vote each year. Of course I do all of those. So from one outsider’s position, I can offer these thoughts about how I view the state of our political system.
It seems to me that most of our country resides near the political middle – some leaning left, some leaning right, but basically the majority of our country is not so fanatical to realize the real value of compromise and the need for proper discourse of the issues to reach workable resolutions. So why is it that the extremes control our political culture? Clearly the loudest voice seems to get the attention these days and it is those extremes who have raised their voices. Because of this loud voice, it feels to me like the extremes are a much bigger contingent than is truly the case. But I honestly believe the middle has the power, but perhaps simply does not know how to use it. To put it mildly and bluntly, something is really screwed up.
Do you think our country’s forefathers thought that our Representatives and Senators would constantly be concerned with re-election, and therefore always pandering to the loudest voices who appeared to be the ones with power to keep them in office. I don’t. I believe they had much loftier goals in mind. Clearly the Senate was to have more power, given the 6 year terms, but the House was to be the voice of the people. So what went wrong?
 Look at the Constitutional Convention – some of the most respected and opinionated individuals our country has known were in attendance, and it was quite clear there was no love lost between many of these men. Further, there was a huge difference of opinion over most, if not all of the issues; yet what resulted was a well debated, true compromise that created a governmental system that has shined as an example to many a nation over the past 225 years (not lost on this author is the fact that clearly these men did drop the ball and showed the lack of vision on the issues of slavery and gender equality).
Read the rest of…
David Snyder: On the Outside Looking In
By RP Staff, on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:00 PM ET Friend of RP Steven Schulman, best known to the world as “Pro Bono Dude,” was quoted in a CNN story, “Hard Times for Lawyers Spell Pro Bono Cuts”:
At Akin Gump, a prominent law firm in Washington, D.C., Steve Schulman, head of the pro bono practice, notes, “as a firm, we are a bit leaner, so, of course, pro bono hours are down.” A firm restructuring trimmed nearly 200 attorneys from its roster since 2007, which has resulted in a reduced pro bono case load, Schulman says.
Akin Gump lawyers have racked up 48,000 free hours so far this year, and the firm expects to be close to last year’s 57,000 total hours. Such work, he says, “is still a draw to recruit top law students.”
Larger firms also have deeper pockets to cover expenses, such as travel, to pursue a pro bono case. But, Schulman maintains, that while “our attorneys are on salary, which is a fixed cost, and it doesn’t cost that much to generate an extra free hour, the cost to the firm of these hours is not zero.”
Click here to read the full story.
By Lisa Miller, on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 12:00 PM ET  Sunday, Dec. 4th: The Mind Body Studio, 517 Southland Dr, Lexington
OR
Saturday Jan. 7th: The Om Place, 815 Quisenberry Ln, Winchester
10:00am-5:00pm
Join this fantastic circle of women for a day of gentle yoga, chakra meditation, understanding your aura, Nia dance, writing, and Ayurveda, as we reconnect with the inner Goddess that resides in each of us.
The Women’s-Circle Retreats are a light-hearted, profoundly insightful, replenishing, time-out from stress. Here, in the company of other fantastic women, we remember how to tap into pure calm from deep within, and to carry that as wisdom and balance into our daily lives.
This will be a day of laughter, movement, play, and stillness, in the company of others who share a similar desire to feel great and to
live from a place of happiness!
To reserve your space in the class, mail a check for $70, include your name, phone & e-mail, to Lisa Miller, C/O The Cntr for Wellness Therapies 2040 Regency Rd, suite A, Lexington, KY 40503
Questions? Lisa Miller, RYT/ Chopra Center for Wellbeing Instructor:
(859)227-4101, or LisaMMM628@aol.com
Bring a lunch, journal & colored pencils, water bottle, & dress comfortably.
By Lisa Miller, on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:00 PM ET
Local Artists & Crafters are Setting up Shop!
Help raise funds for the Temple*
When you find fantastic holiday gifts
And buy directly from the vendors:
Sunday, November 27th, 2011
11:00am—3:00pm
Temple Adath Israel
124 N. Ashland Ave., Lexington
Priced from $12+:
*Temple Adath Israel will receive 10% of the proceeds from the fair.
Beautiful, thoughtful, unique holiday gifts!
By Ronald J. Granieri, on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 8:30 AM ET In 1963, William F. Buckley, Jr. quipped “I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard University.” The quote has been passed around so often in various forms (my initial Google search this morning returned more than seventy million hits), with and without attribution to the late Mr. Buckley, that the original context of the comment (a jab at the Kennedy brain trust) is lost in the mist.
At the risk of alienating many of my readers, I will declare right now that Buckley has been one of my heroes since my teenage years. However my opinions on specific issues may have diverged from his over time, Buckley’s sparkling wit and clarity of thought continue to inspire me. I still read his works for pleasure, and measure my own poor writing style against his.
 Even the cleverest comments from great thinkers, however, can be dangerous when they are wrenched from their original context and take on a life of their own. (Thomas Jefferson, the tree of liberty, and the blood of tyrants come to mind…) Buckley’s Boston phone book quote is just such a comment. It has become a popular rhetorical tic among conservatives, and threatens to be more damaging to the conservative intellectual project than anything ever dreamt up on the left.
The quote, and the attitude behind it, has been in a great deal of conscious and unconscious circulation of late, as Republican presidential candidates attempt to contrast themselves with President Obama and to deal with their own occasional lapses of knowledge or eloquence. Thus we have Rick Perry, fresh off recent debate catastrophes, saying to all who would listen, “I am a doer, not a talker. ” Similarly, Herman Cain, far from embarrassed about his lack of facility in discussing complicated international events, has embraced ignorance, proclaiming (in unconscious echo of a classic moment from The Simpsons): “We need a leader, not a reader.” In this time of crisis, these messages suggest, the country should reject intellectual attainment in favor of someone unfettered by too much thinking.
Read the rest of…
Ronald J. Granieri: Up From Ignorance
|
|
