I’m now officially opposed to both Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. Their attacks on Bain Capital were the final straw. As far as Rick Perry goes he can't string ideas together and his Small Government critics were right: he really is a Yellow Dog Democrat. He may get me excited by calling Social Security a Ponzi Scheme but how can I back him if he bashes business as he did by calling Bain Capital "Vulture Capitalism". Perry, what were you thinking?
And Newt - I love a lot of what he says. I love the way he turns the tables in debates and doesn't let himself fall into trap - but then he turns around and backs government-run health care, calls the Paul Ryan plan "right-wing social engineering" even though the plan really is too-little-too-late; and now he bashes businesses like Bain Capital? I can forgive Gingrich for falling for the global warming crap but this I cannot.
I don't expect Gingrich to take punishment without hitting back - he should attach Romney on his ideas, attack him on his policies, attack him on not being able to connect with the American people - but to attack him for Bain Capital? No. With that you lost my support.
The only thing that has changed is that I think that there is real chance for a Republican blow-out as happened in 1980. There is so much disapproval of Obama, especially among working-class labor voters (teamsters, laborers, machinists, etc... ) that the loss of this core Democratic block would result in an electoral blow-out.
A generation ago this voting block was called Reagan Democrats. It was nothing like that - it was that construction union members felt estranged from Carter in much the same way their children feel estranged from Obama. The more the Republicans bring up Keystone and Solyndra the more "Reagan Democrats" will be tempted to vote for the Republican candidate. For this to be true the Republican candidate must, in the same way that Reagan did, prove that he is not the evil, brain-dead, dangerous caricature he is made out to be. It may very well be close until the last month before voters move en mass away from Obama.
I'm not a Rick Perry fan (not being a social conservative) but I must say I've been impressed with his latest debating performances. Perry's road to the Whitehouse would have been fairly smooth if not for his numerous debating blunders. It was a major strategic error for him not to have spent months honing his debating skills before announcing his candidacy. As it is his candidacy is on lifesupport and his only chance is for Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich to bloody themselves while he resurrects his campaign.
Can Rick Perry do that? Yes, but only if he runs a flawless campaign AND his debating performances improve to the point where he can battle Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney head on. He needs to prove that he will not embarrass himself and his supporters come his debates with Obama next fall.
Right now Mitt Romeny is in a terrible position: social conservatives, libertarians, and Tea Party types do not want him as their nominee. Gingrich is suspect (Health Care, Global Warming, "Right-Wing Social Engineering") but, when on message, says all the right things. If Newt and Romney split the early delegates and Perry catches on strong we may very well have a brokered convention. Perry, as a sitting governor; as a candidate coming on strong; as an establishment favorite would have an excellent shot at walking out with the nomination.
I'm not much of a Romney fan, but I have to say that this Romney campaign flyer from 1994 is quite interesting. Romney may have his flip-flopping issues but it's nothing like Kerry's "I was for it before I was against it" statement.
Government can pick the winners say statists of all sorts. And, once again, with the bankruptcy of Soyndra we see the problem of corporatism -- government experts cannot pick the winners. In the 1980s numerous American statists pointed to Japan as the way of the future. Japan, Inc. it was called. Corporatism was the perfect blend of big business and big government.
The future didn't work the way the statists expected; but then it never does. The US government sunk over $500,000,000 in Solyndra only to have it end in bankruptcy.
The California solar panel manufacturer that received a high-profile $535-million Energy Department loan guarantee said it was ceasing operations, laying of 1,100 workers and preparing to file for bankruptcy protection. ...
It was quite a fall from late 2009, when Solyndra received a $535-million federal loan guarantee as part of the $787-billion economic stimulus package. In May 2010, company executives hosted President Obama on a factory tour and said they expected to add employees. ...
Solyndra would become the third such company to file for bankruptcy in recent days. Spectrawatt Inc. of Hopewell Junction, N.Y., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Aug. 19. Evergreen Solar Inc. of Marlboro, Mass., filed for Chapter 11 on Aug. 15. Solar panel firm Solyndra to cease operations
For years now AGW proponents have argued two points: that their models are accurate (and becoming ever more so) and that the debate is settled, namely that all scientists agree that human activity is the cause of the "dramatic" increase in global temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere.
People like me, who question the accuracy of the findings (and are appalled by the politics surrounding the issue) are derided as anti-science, anti-reason boobs.
Now, out comes a research study from CERN, a study long-delayed due to political intereference, which turns the AGW positions on its head. It's findings, if true, completely invalidate the existing climate models. Second, and as important, it once again underscores the fact that AGW is not "settled" science.
The CERN press release states that "it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised." The press release concludes with the statement "However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed."
The concluding statement is a necessary show of scientific humility, one not taken by the AGW zealots.
If you want to hear a presentation made by Jasper Kirkby at a TED conference, here it is:
EDIT: 9/14/2011
For further evidence that the science is not settled note that Nobel Prize Physicists are resigning from the American Physical Society over the position that the debate is settled.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:
Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
