November 10, 2006
Why do we need government?
Posted by Mitch Kokai at 8:39 PM
From the latest copy of National Review:
The Czech Republic is without a government, and times have scarcely been better. June elections resulted in a parliamentary deadlock, with no political party able to form a coalition. President Vaclav Klaus's first pick for prime minister resigned in October after failing to win a confidence vote, and now Klaus is urging MPs to amend the constitution in order to call early elections. But while the politicians have scrambled for a solution, unemployment has fallen, GDP has risen, and life has gone on much as before. We trust the Czechs will want a functioning state eventually -- there's that whole national-defense thing, for instance. But in the meantime, let's hear a cheer for limited government.
Another JLF milestone
Posted by Joseph Coletti at 3:21 PM
Daren's paper on mercury regulations is JLF's 300th Spotlight.
Japanese Cars Still Tops in Quality
Posted by Chad Adams at 3:20 PM
Just thought it worth noting that unionized production of cars still lag in quality, oops, American cars that is.
Excerpts: Asian automakers once again dominated the closely watched reliability
ratings, but U.S. automakers are steadily improving, David Champion,
senior director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, said
Consumer Reports sends the auto reliability survey to print and online
subscribers. Some 950,000 people responded this year, providing answers
on about 1.3 million vehicles.
RE: Hit Man in Rocky Top
Posted by Dr. Troy Kickler at 2:27 PM
A few years ago, conservative students criticized the Issues Committee for selecting almost only liberal speakers. Since then, as can be seen here, some effort has been made to balance the views being expressed--since the students and Tennesseans are basically paying for these speakers to visit Rocky Top.
WaPo: No taxation without ["chic" presentation]!
Posted by Jon Sanders at 1:33 PMHT: NewsBusters
Mayb it's the prospect of a Republican president and a Democrat Congress that has me hitting 1980s slang, but with respect to this Washington Post piece, gag me with a spoon:
The image of Rep. Nancy Pelosi standing in front of a formation of American flags Wednesday morning, taking questions as the presumptive new speaker of the House, was an arresting one and not simply because she is [sic] the first woman to be in that position. ...
* snip noxious gushing *
She looked polished and tasteful in front of the cameras. It is tempting to even go so far as to say that she looked chic, which in the world beyond Washington would be considered a compliment, but in the context of politics is an observation fraught with insinuations of partisanship and condescension.
(The appearance of the current speaker, Rep. Dennis Hastert, will go unmentioned here except to say that there is nothing chic or particularly polished about it.)
Letís Look At History (and the role of some other folks).
Posted by Michael Moore at 12:50 AM
Great leaders do have set backs. I have been thinking about
the events of this week, and it is no doubt historical in American
Political History. This is not the first time people have taken
their disapproval of a President out on his party in the mid-term
elections. From looking back we find that the Democrats lost both
Chambers of Congress (House and Senate) in 1946 when Trumanís approval rating was around 30% (Sound familiar?). George Will has a good piece on Townhall that fits into the situation.
Letís continue to look at history for a moment, David McCulloughís excellent book: TRUMAN
is a great look into Harry T.ís political battles. I would
recommend this book to anyone wanting to understand the workings of the
Presidency and Congress. Truman was in my opinion a decent
person, so he did have a few liberal ideas. He made the decision
to drop the Atomic Bomb, showing that he stepped up to the plate in
1945 at the Death of Franklin D. Roosevelt to become a wartime
leader. Not to mention that the policy of the Truman
Administration rebuilt Japan and Germany. When the war ended
their were some economic problems because of the transition from a
wartime economy to a peace-time economy, but Truman had a view of what
needed to be done. Well, people took the problems out on him in
1946 when they gave Congress to the Republicans. So the story
goes, you knew where the guy stood, and he wasnít afraid to put people
in their place even if you were a war hero (General
Another leader that suffered political problems was Winston Churchill,
just months after the end of War World II. The Brits voted the
Labour into power and Churchillís conservative party out. See a
Ronald W. Reagan also had mid-term election trouble, in 1982 (House and Senate elections) and 1986 (House and Senate
elections). At no time during his presidency did the Republicans
control the House of Representatives, senate control flipped back and
So some folks are down in the dumps this week, while others are on cloud nine. Iím as fine as Dental Sweet Snuff, because just look at these guys and how history has judged them as leaders:
This weekend on Carolina Journal Radio
Posted by Mitch Kokai at 12:28 AM
You'll hear more about the state math score madness from both Lindalyn Kakadelis and Terry Stoops on the next edition of Carolina Journal Radio.
We'll highlight discussion from some Tar Heel academics (actually, none of them is a Tar Heel, but that's another topic) about the proper role of the college professor in public debates.
Plus Max Borders of TCS Daily joins us to chat about government response to disasters, and Beth Froehling of the N.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence discusses that group's legislative goals.
Democrats with Horse Sense
Posted by Dr. Michael Sanera at 11:43 AM
Here is one silver lining in the election. Democrats who won in Currituck County have decided to sell the horse farm that Republicans recently purchased. (Thanks for the tip, Paul)
The closeness of House races
Posted by John Hood at 11:29 AM
Republican pollster Ed Goeas made the point yesterday that the American electorate is still closely divided. Democrats enjoyed a solid advantage in the national vote for U.S. House, of course, but some of that reflected large margins in already Democratic districts. In the battleground districts, the outcomes were determined by small margins in most cases. Goeas said that of the 28 House seats that (at the point he was talking) flipped to the Dems, 22 were won by less than 2 percent of the vote, 18 by 5,000 or fewer votes, and four by fewer than 1,000 votes.
Itís worth noting, however, that this kind of math works both ways. There were some Republican seats saved by a handful of votes, such as the 8th District here in North Carolina, where incumbent Rep. Robin Hayes appears to have won with fewer than 400 more votes than his underfinanced Democratic opponent, Larry Kissell.
The Heath Bar explanation
Posted by John Hood at 11:20 AM
Writing in the New York Post, pollster Craig Charney makes exactly the right point about the Democratsí success at candidate recruitment this year ó and why liberal activists are ridiculously misstating the ideological meaning of the outcome:
... [T]o win [competitive] seats, Democrats needed candidates who took a more moderate posture, particularly on social values. How moderate? Some 27 of the 40 most competitive Democratic House candidates pledged, if elected, to join the centrist New Democratic Caucus - a group that is anathema to the party's liberals.
Posted by Joseph Coletti at 11:13 AM
We know why companies want to be franchisers, but research makes it hard to explain why so many people want to become franchisees.
The message: If you want to own a business, start one.
Hit Man in Rocky Top
Posted by Joseph Coletti at 10:45 AM
Troy, Why is UT associating itself so closely to this tripe?
2006: the unforeseen revolution
Posted by Jon Sanders at 09:40 AM
How is it, in college football, that Rutgers is undefeated and one-loss Wake Forest has the inside track to the ACC championship game?
Posted by Joseph Coletti at 08:56 AM
Democrats won because they don't like trade, says Joan Claybrook's group, Public Citizen.
Where's The Other Side?
Posted by Joseph Coletti at 08:24 AM
Well, you won't find it in the Observer.
Wait, hold on, ahh, here it is. And out two days before the Observer story ran.
Policy Shift Continues Quickly (adding to Messino's list)
Posted by Chad Adams at 08:21 AM
And so it begins:
#2 - Environmental Policy Shift
Boxer pledges shift on global warming policy with new Senate role
SAMANTHA YOUNG, Associated Press Writer
November 9, 2006 3:39 PM
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Sen. Barbara Boxer on Thursday promised major policy shifts on global warming, air quality and toxic-waste cleanup as she prepares to head the U.S. Senate's environmental committee.
''Time is running out, and we need to move forward on this,'' Boxer said of global warming during a conference call with reporters. ''The states are beginning to take steps, and we need to take steps as well.''
Boxer's elevation to chairwoman of the Senate Environmental Public Works Committee comes as the Democrats return to power in the Senate. It also marks a dramatic shift in ideology for the panel.
The California Democrat is one of the Senate's most liberal members and replaces one of the most conservative senators, Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Inhofe had blocked bills seeking to cut the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, calling the issue ''the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people.''
Environmentalists were overjoyed at the change.
<< Last Entry