By Jeff Smith, on Thu Feb 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM ET  It does bring him closer to the nomination, due in no small part to his uncanny good fortune. Let’s review.
The woman who rose meteorically to take the Iowa straw poll collapsed upon the entrance of a governor who offered the veneer of tea party rhetoric as strident as hers, but had the backing of mega-donors from the state with more Republican money than any other outside California.
That governor, who was thought to be his leading conservative opponent, turned out to have spent about as much time preparing for the campaign as my students spend preparing for pop quizzes.
When the governor’s lack of preparation became obvious, he was replaced briefly as the national frontrunner by a former pizza executive who made the governor look like Thomas Jefferson.
When the pizza exec showed himself to be completely unfamiliar with some of the most basic facts of foreign policy, and an impressively lecherous fellow to boot, a new frontrunner emerged, one whose national favorable ratings were lower than Nixon’s during impeachment. This man had a record of personal behavior that John Edwards might have been ashamed of combined with an unmatched proclivity to self-destruct, and he proceeded to do so in short order.
The former senator who rose in Iowa at the last moment to replace him as frontrunner had raised less than $1M at the time of his ascent, and lacked any semblance of national campaign infrastructure.
But to Romney’s great good fortune, the man less popular than an impeached Nixon regained enough momentum in the ensuing weeks to ensure that the previous man could not build on his Iowa victory – a victory which was, to Romney’s even greater good fortune, not made official until weeks later, dramatically reducing its impact.
I challenge even the most imaginative journalist or satirist in the nation to conjure another scenario by which the anti-Romney majority could have been so improbably failed to unite.
(Cross-posted, with permission of the author, from Politico’s Arena)
By John Y. Brown III, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET  I love big ideas and the one I’m about to share may be the biggest idea of 2011!
What if I told you I had devised a way that would reduce personal debt by 8-9% each year (yet there would be zero loss to our quality of life or reduction in things we want to purchase)?
In addition to personal debt reduction, we could eat away at the international trade imbalance by an equivalent annual amount.
And finally, the “generalized frustration” each American feels daily would be moderately and noticeably reduced.
Would you be interested?
Of course, you would.
Here’s my idea. Ban all “up-selling”–the annoying practice of enticing Americans, a group who already can’t shop responsibly, to buy stuff we neither need nor want with money we don’t have!
The only thing we would miss is the stuff we bring home that we neither want nor need….and keep it available for those who truly need these items (yet another economic efficiency).
But–and here’s the brilliant part–only ban upselling domestically. For all international sales we will “require” companies to up-sell. This means every time we transact for a major export—e.g. sell aircraft, soybeans, semi-conductors, etc to a foreign country– we require that the US company ask if they’d like fries, an extra muffin, stamps, batteries, or to open a new bank account (in the US).
Of course, individually no single upsell will make much of a dent. But over time the US trade imbalance will be rectified, we won’t need another bailout from DC, we’ll walk around less antsy becuase we’ll feel competent to shop for ourselves, and for the first time in a long time we’ll be a model of personal fiscal restraint for the rest of the world.
There! That’s my big idea contribution for 2011.
By Jonathan Miller, on Tue Feb 7, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET While the RP has recently been stirring the pot with pieces on highly controversial issues such as legalizing marijuana, expanded gaming, and Tim Tebow, he now addresses an idea that should have nearly-universal support: Cutting Congressional pay when they fail to pass a budget. Read this except from his piece today in The Huffington Post:
A thousand days.
In our gazelle-paced, über-networked society, so many remarkable, epochal events have taken place during the last thousand days:
Both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street emerged as powerful rebuttals to the status quo in American politics…
The Arab Spring ushered in a domino effect that toppled vicious dictators across the Middle East…
A handful of European democracies teetered on the brink of collapse, while world powers rushed to preserve the global economy…
And most significant of all…Two Kardahsian weddings were followed by one Kardashian divorce.
But one critical thing has not occured:
It’s been more than one thousand days since the U.S. Congress passed a budget resolution.
And in the meantime, the congressional appropriations process – the means by which all federal spending is authorized and allocated – has simply broken down. During the current fiscal year, only 3 of the 12 regular appropriations bills have been passed.
Sound like a lot of inside the Beltway jargon?
Here’s what it means:
When Congress acts without a budget, it essentially is spending taxpayer money without first evaluating and prioritizing its services. A budget, in essence, is a blueprint that allows us as a nation to make deliberate decisions on how to allocate our scarce resources. Without one, taxpayers are forced to pick up the tab for the waste and inefficiencies.
When Congress fails to pass spending bills on time, it relies instead on temporary spending measures. In the past fiscal year, there were eight such temporary “continuing resolutions.” This start-and-stop spending process causes havoc for federal agencies that provide for our national defense, transportation financing, education support, environmental protection, and product and food safety. Government is forced to operate in a fog of financial uncertainty, resulting sometimes in delays of critical national services.
But guess who’s been paid right on time, like a Swiss clock, during this entire thousand day period?
No need for a spoiler alert: It’s just too delicious an irony…the U.S. Congress.
Click here to read the entire piece, “No Budget? No Pay!” at The Huffington Post.
By Rod Jetton, on Mon Feb 6, 2012 at 11:30 AM ET  Rod Jetton: Rebuttal #5
[Krystal Ball’s Provocation; Artur Davis’ Rebuttal #1; Jeff Smith’s Rebuttal #2; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #3; The RP’s Rebuttal #4; Ron Granieri’s First Response]
Listening to liberals the past few weeks is so fun.
They are all giddy with how “nasty” the Republican primary has become and have convinced themselves that the “weakened” Republican nominee won’t stand a chance against President Obama.
Krystal made these points in her post, but those predictors are not very objective. They point out that the tea party base will nominate an extremist who can’t beat Obama. They seem happy to take on Romney even though he is considered to be the moderate Republican.
This election is not like 1968, or 1972. It’s a bit like 1980 and a lot like 2008. Artur Davis pointed out reality in his post, and those facts about the key states Obama has to win are real. I’m sure the polling and focus groups show the Bain Capital attack to be effective. That is why Newt and every Democrat talking head repeat it every chance they can. I also think it will be more effective on general election voters, but Romney has a chance to turn those attacks into a positive if he plays it right.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate the GOP Mudfest: Rod Jetton Rebuts
By Jonathan Miller, on Fri Feb 3, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET In the wake of his notorious call to legalize marijuana, the RP is now taking up a much less controversial cause — that of legalizing the production and sale of pot’s non-narcotic cousin, industrial hemp. Because of public misunderstanding and stereotypes, a product that could be an enormous economic boon for America — and especially the RP’s home state of Kentucky — is the grossly unfair victim of the overreaching war on drugs.
In this week’s edition of , the RP challenges the Kentucky business community to get behind bipartisan legislation to put the Commonwealth at the forefront of hemp legalization efforts. Here’s an excerpt:
When new Agriculture Commissioner Jamie Comer—a rising star of the Kentucky Republican Party—and State Senator Joey Pendleton—a long-time and well-respected Democratic leader—joined last week to endorse a major public policy proposal, political insiders took notice of the much-too-rare instance of bipartisanship.
But when the two mostly conservative politicians revealed that their common objective was the legalization of industrial hemp, the halls of Frankfort let out a collective gasp.
That’s because the subject of hemp legalization, while discussed and debated for decades, has been mostly seen as a cause célèbre of the political margins, either the “hippie” Far Left or the libertarian Far Right. And the politician most associated with hemp’s advocacy was the perennial candidate and courthouse jester of Kentucky politics, the recently deceased Gatewood Galbraith.
But as the Comer/Pendleton alliance reveals, public support for industrial hemp legalization—particularly within the agri-cultural community (both men are active farmers)—is reaching a tipping point.
And it’s time for Kentucky’s business community to shoulder-pad-up and push legalized industrial hemp across the goal line.
Click here to read the RP’s full piece in Business Lexington.
By Jeff Smith, on Wed Feb 1, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET $15T of debt, $1T+ annual deficits, and the co-frontrunner for the presidential nomination of the allegedly fiscally conservative party is advocating a moon colony. You really couldn’t make this up.
Call me zany, but I just don’t get Newt’s strategy of doing everything possible to feed into the caricature of him painted by his opponents. Fortunately he can pontificate about moon colonies while his Adelson-funded SuperPAC labors at the last minute to generate a ground game that his official campaign spent a year neglecting.
If I were him, I would be doing everything possible to come off like a solid, grounded, trustworthy person ready to roll up my sleeves and offer very specific policies to facilitate job growth. But then, I thought his campaign was over last June, so what do I know?
(Cross-posted, with permission of the author, from Politico’s Arena)
By RP Nation, on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET Yesterday, The Recovering Politician featured a lively debate among the contributing RPs on the subject of whether states should expand gambling for the additional tax revenues they present during these difficult times.
To read the first piece that started it, check out The RP’s “The Moral Case for Gaming”
To review all of the arguments and counter-arguments, pro, con and sideways, from yesterday’s RPs Debate, click here.
Our readers sent in some very thoughtful and interesting comments. We excerpt a few below:
I understand the need for gambling in Kentucky. I have no moral arguments against gambling. My discussion is more the benefits of the individual vs. the benefits of society. First a disclaimer – I’m very liberal. Statistically speaking, it is no surprise to the educated that gambling favors the “house”. The odds are any one person will probably lose more money than they gain from a wager.
According to a national survey, blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be “pathological” gamblers. Impulsivity also was greater among youth of lower socio-economic status . Gambling can also find risk populations with older adults. The bottom line, to me, is does the benefit of society outweigh the benefit (or lack thereof) for the individual. W.C. Fields said there’s a sucker born every minute. And Kentucky would depend on these “suckers” to help fund our state. Yes, we have our signs that urge citizens to drink responsibly, gamble responsibly, etc. But I can’t help but feel Kentucky would be enabling a negative behavior for those least able to afford it.
I understand other states have gambling, and Kentucky is losing $$ to those states. What percentage of Kentucky citizens are flocking to tangential states, and what percentage do we anticipate gambling would increase in Kentucky with in-state casinos? We need to be creative to generate income for our state. And I know in-state gambling is one of those creative ideas. I just believe it is an idea the ultimately will generate as many problems as it attempts to solve.
Read the rest of…
The RP Nation Weighs in on the Gambling Debate
By RP Nation, on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 4:00 PM ET David Host: Rebuttal #4
[The RP’s Provocation, Artur Davis’s Rebuttal #1; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #2; Natasha Dow Schüll’s Analysis; Spectrum Gaming Group’s Analysis; Jason Grill’s Rebuttal #3; The RP’s First Defense; Jason Grill’s First Response; Artur Davis’ First Response]
Given that Kentucky’s self-image is significantly rooted in an industry built upon parimutuel betting, opposing legalized gambling on moral grounds alone seems to require some degree of cognitive dissonance. Moreover, the Kentucky Lottery is now more than two decades old – meaning that the camel (horse?) poked its nose under the tent some time ago.
Nevertheless, I do sympathize with those who wish to draw some practical line; who sense something amiss when state governments rush to endorse an industry which destroys lives. Perhaps a reasonable case exists for allowing thoroughbred tracks to expand into slots and other gaming at existing locations; such a measure is a far cry from actively promoting the expansion of gaming as a remedy for budget shortfalls.
Certainly, expanded gaming offers an appealing short-term means for shoring up cash-strapped government budgets; perhaps a necessary evil in service of the long-term public good. Yet, the risk in embracing gambling as an interim solution remains its potential to become a permanent substitute for fundamental reform.
By Artur Davis, on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM ET 
Artur Davis‘ First Reponse
[The RP’s Provocation, Artur Davis’s Rebuttal #1; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #2; Natasha Dow Schüll’s Analysis; Spectrum Gaming Group’s Analysis; Jason Grill’s Rebuttal #3; The RP’s First Defense; Jason Grill’s First Response]
I would add just a little to Jonathan’s arguments against sports gambling, which I think are entirely correct. The NCAA struggles to police the rules that exist today; it is a notoriously weak investigator without subpoena power, and I cant’t imagine the strains it would face if policing the ties between amateurs and more powerful, more nationalized gambling interests were part of it’s charter.
It’s worth examining the question of why the current regime of legalized sports betting in a few jurisdictions doesn’t pose the same risks. In fairness to Jason Grill’s case, there are enormous sums of gambling money at work today, and it’s been over 25 years since there was a bona-fide betting scandal in college sports. The true answer is that we don’t know what changing the scale of sports betting would do to incentivize corruption; in my mind, however, that’s a strike in it’s own right. If we guess wrong, the likelihood is an irreparable stain on amateur athletics. It’s also likely that, as I have argued in the context of legalizing marijuana, criminals are far more likely to bend their business model to profit from looser regulations, than they are to forfeit a lucrative market altogether.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Gambling: Artur Davis Responds
By Jason Grill, on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM ET  Jason Grill‘s First Response
[The RP’s Provocation, Artur Davis’s Rebuttal #1; Ron Granieri’s Rebuttal #2; Natasha Dow Schüll’s Analysis; Spectrum Gaming Group’s Analysis; Jason Grill’s Rebuttal #3; The RP’s First Defense]
Sports gambling & betting is widespread and common place in our country and it’s being done illegally every minute.
It’s immoral not to legalize it and give states the option to reap the economic benefits of it for all of its citizens and visitors.
On Jonathan’s college argument:
The FBI estimates that more than $2.5 billion is illegally wagered annually on the NCAA basketball tournament each year. However, Nevada sportsbook operators estimate close to $90 million or less than 4 percent of illegal betting on March Madness is wagered legally on the tournament in their state.
Read the rest of…
The RPs Debate Gambling: Jason Grill Responds
|
The Recovering Politician Bookstore
|
