Archive for the ‘2008 Election’ Category

A Projection From Karl Rove’s Playbook

Tuesday, February 26th, 2008

Hillary accuses Obama of using Rove-like tactics against her. A page out of the Karl Rove playbook she calls it. Shame on you she scolds Obama.

Hmmmm.

I don’t actually have a copy of the Rove playbook, but I suspect that there’s a whole chapter devoted to projection — the tactic of accusing your opponents of having your own bad qualities, or of doing the bad things that you yourself are doing. Accuse the Democrats of being big spenders, while running up the largest deficits in the history of the country. Say Democrats don’t support the troops, while abusing the hell out of the military and refusing to provide necessary armor, medical care, etc. Shout about the Democratic vision of a nanny state, while reading everybody’s email and listening to everybody’s phone calls.

So if you ask me, it’s Hillary that has taken a page, or rather a chapter, out of the Karl Rove playbook. To accuse your opponent of using Rovian tactics is a classic example of this kind of projection. Karl Rove would be proud.

John McCain’s “Anonymous Sources”

Saturday, February 23rd, 2008

John McCain keeps complaining the the New York Time’s story about his close relationship with a Washington lobbyist was based on “anonymous sources.”  That’s just ridiculous.  An anonymous source is one that is unknown to the newspaper.  No newspaper of any repute will quote, much less base stories on, anonymous sources.

McCain is just confusing an anonymous source with a confidential, or unnamed, source.  The source of the Time’s  story were former staffers of the Senator.  They are certainly known to the Times; the Times has simply decided not to name them in the story.  This happens all the time and is key to good journalism.  If sources couldn’t remain confidential, they wouldn’t talk to newspapers.  There are even laws in many states that protect the confidentiality of news sources.

The use of unnamed sources is certainly susceptible to abuse.  In effect, we have to rely on the integrity of the newspaper.  So who would you believe, the New York Times or a politician?

Daniel Gilbert is a Complete Moron

Wednesday, July 18th, 2007

First of all, my apologies to all the Dan Gilberts in the world. It must be a fairly common name, so if you are a Dan Gilbert and are NOT running for President on the GOP ticket, I’m not writing about you.

As a matter of fact, the Dan Gilbert who IS running for president is a pretty obscure figure. If you Google his name, he doesn’t even show up on the first page of results. It’s not good if you’re running for President and there are two, yes TWO, people with your name that are better known than you.

One is a Harvard Professor of Psychology who has written a book called “Stumbling Upon Happiness.” It promises to “shatter your most deeply held convictions about how your mind works.” No mean feat, considering that you probably don’t have any “deeply held convictions” about how my mind works, but I don’t hold that against Doctor Gilbert. He appears to be an accomplished scientist, and I doubt that he is a complete moron.

Another Dan Gilbert who is better known than the Presidential hopeful is the founder of Rock Financial, now Quicken Loans. Full disclosure here: this Dan Gilbert went to the same law school as I, my sister once worked at Quicken Loans, and both my father and I refinanced our homes through Quicken Loans. Having said that, I don’t know anything about this particular Dan Gilbert. I have no reason to believe, however, that he is a complete moron.

Which brings us to the Dan Gilbert who would lead our great country. This particular Dan Gilbert is so obscure that the only biographical information that I can find about him is from his own campaign website. He says that he is a businessman and lives somewhere in South Carolina. He owns a company that makes electronic drums. Go figure.

So if this guy is so obscure, why am I writing about him? It’s because I happened to catch him on the Tom Hartman show the other day, where I learned that he had placed third on some New Hampshire straw poll for the Republican primary. This turns out to be a complete non-event, but it got Gilbert on Hartman’s show and is the only positive thing that has happened in the guy’s campaign, such as it is. So I got a chance to hear Gilbert talk. And that’s how I learned that he is a complete moron.

I like to hear what a candidate has to say about health care. To me, the question “should the government pay for health care?” is about as difficult as “should the government pay for roads?” And while there’s nothing surprising about a Republican who opposes universal health care (they like toll roads too), Gilbert’s solution for the problem was startling — a person who is uninsured and beaten down by medical bills should be allowed to take on a second job and not pay social security taxes on the wages of his or her second job. The question is not how stupid is that, but how many ways is it stupid? It’s bad policy, it’s illogical, and it’s bad math, just for starters. Considering that Gilbert’s bread and butter issue is “family values” and he bemoans the fact that parents don’t spend enough time with their children, it’s odd that he wants to encourage bread earners to take on second jobs to pay for medical bills.

In fact, it’s when it comes to “family values” that Gilbert’s thinking is the most muddled. Hartman brought up the issue of economic inequality and the erosion of the middle class. Hartman pointed out that before the economic policies of the Republicans took hold during Reagan’s presidency, most households had only one working parent, and the other parent could stay home with the children. Gilbert responded by arguing that the economic difficulties of the middle class were caused by the abandonment of “traditional values,” specifically children being born out of wedlock with the result that households had only one income to support the family. Huh? The reason families can no longer get by on one income is because they don’t have two incomes?

Perhaps the foregoing will come as less of a surprise if you consider that Gilbert is mathematically illiterate. In a recent post in his “blog,” Gilbert cites statistics stating that in the first 17 years of his or her life, the average American child will have spent 63,835 hours on television, movies, videos, video games, the internet, and music, but only 11,000 hours in school and 2,000 hours with their parents. Gilbert cites these statistics without question. Gilbert is an idiot. These numbers are mathematically impossible. They would have the average child spending almost 12 hours a day immersed in “television, movies, videos, video games, the internet, and music,” but only 19.5 minutes per day with their parents, and only 4.5 hours per school day in school. Maybe Dan Gilbert spent only 4.5 hours in school, and maybe that’s the problem. Dan must have skipped a lot of math classes.

The moral of the story: if you’re determined to vote for somebody named Daniel Gilbert for President, make it the Harvard Professor or the guy who started Quicken Loans. The first seems to know a thing or two about happiness, and I have a hunch that the second is pretty good in math.

One Thing You Don’t Hear A Lot About Hilary Clinton

Saturday, June 16th, 2007

She served on the Wal-Mart Board of Directors from 1986 to 1992.

John Edwards’ Insane Health Care Plan

Friday, June 15th, 2007

What’s wrong with politicians, why can’t they get it? Americans want universal health care. Every other industrialized nation on earth has it. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Study how other countries do it, see what works best, and build your universal health plan around that. No brainer in my book.

So what does Edwards do? He takes America’s broken system of private health insurance and tries to build universal health care around it. That’s insane. It’s like taking a Hummer to a chop shop and telling them to make it a Prius. Stupid, you have to design it from the ground up.

There is just no way to create a universal health care system on the backs of private insurance companies, unless you want to keep everything that’s bad about our current system and pay an exorbitant price for it in the process.

First of all, the notion of funding health care with “insurance” is idiotic. Insurance is to spread the risk for unforeseen events. You have car insurance because you don’t expect to have an accident or have your car stolen. But health care is a necessity, not an unforeseen event. We expect (indeed hope) to see doctors for periodic checkups at a minimum and more often as needed. It just doesn’t make sense to buy “insurance” to pay expenses that we know we are going to incur. We don’t buy insurance to pay for our groceries, and we shouldn’t buy insurance for health care either.

Who better than John Edwards should understand that insurance companies operate to make a profit? He made his career battling insurance companies as a medical malpractice trial lawyer. Now he wants to enlist this same insurance industry to serve as the linchpin for his universal health plan? I know I said it before, but that’s insane.

Insurance companies are in business to make profits, as many as possible. There are only so many ways you can do this. You can raise prices, or you can reduce expenses. Most businesses work very hard to do both. The goal of universal health care is to reduce the cost and increase the availability of health care. This is hard to do when you partner with an industry that has the exact opposite goal. We know, however we can reduce costs and increase the quality of health care, because other countries spend less and get more. Other countries don’t use private insurance companies as the vehicle for delivering health care.

John Edwards seems to have some understanding that insurance companies are in business to make profits. His solution? Dictate the premiums that insurance companies can charge. I know I said it before, but that’s insane. It won’t work. It can’t work. Insurance companies pay for health care with their premiums. They also pay for their administrative expenses and generate profits from those premiums. What does Edwards think the insurance companies are going to give up?

The idea that you can reduce the cost of health care by “forcing” insurance companies to be more “efficient” is a pipe dream. Insurance companies are already highly efficient. Highly efficient profit generating machines. Edwards points out, rightly, that a ridiculous percentage of health care costs are administrative expenses. But that’s not because insurance companies are inefficient. It’s because administrative expenses are built into the structure of a system that uses private insurance to pay for health care. Here are some of those expense that have nothing to do with delivering health care: huge commissions to the brokers that sell the insurance (I could write a whole article on that subject alone), billing customers for premiums, collecting premium payments, processing claim forms, receiving and researching inquiries from both doctors and patients concerning the payment of claims, corporate profits and of course absurdly high salaries and stock options for top corporate executives. (Just by way of example, on June 1 of this year, an Aetna employee named Timothy Holt paid Aetna $971,000 to exercise stock options that he immediately sold for $5,112,000, netting over $4 million in the process.)

The only way to eliminate these expenses is to jettison the insurance companies. Of all people I would expect to propose a single payer system, without insurance companies, it would be John Edwards. The average politician is not going to buck the powerful insurance lobby, but trial lawyers stand up to insurance companies day in and day out. It would appear, however, that John Edwards has made the transition from trial lawyer to politician.

That’s insane.