Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Archive for the ‘Politics and Poker’ Category

CPAC thoughts

Posted by Ron Coleman on February 25, 2010

Not mine, mind you.  I send John Hawkins down to round everything up for me.  If I were to attend in person, the whole mystery persona would be shot!  Look what happens to Ron Paul, for example, when people actually look under that rock.  Yeah, there goes my putsch strategy.  So that’s right out.  But Right Wing News has just released the top 20 quotes from CPAC 2010.  I’m not even saying they’re even all safe for work–they’re not.

That’s the other reason I don’t go to CPAC.  Because I’m the last cultural conservative, remember?

Posted in Americana, Heart and spirit, Politics and Poker, Right Wing to Nowhere | Leave a Comment »

Candy canes, unicorns could not be reached for comment

Posted by Ron Coleman on February 16, 2010

New York Times:

U.S. Encounters Limits of Iran Engagement Policy

Well, let’s be sure and learn all this stuff from scratch.  Each time.

Posted in Orient, Past is prologue, Politics and Poker, Stragety | Leave a Comment »

The wrong message

Posted by Ron Coleman on January 20, 2010

One of the things I found so frustrating about “hanging out” online with conservatives is that so many of them didn’t realize that whatever it is that’s going to happen next that’s good for conservatives has little or nothing to do with the GOP leadership.  Conservatives and even old and discarded Republicans such as myself have and had every reason in the world to be pretty much disgusted with the political and ethical ineptitude of the party over the last ten years.

Unsurprisingly, given his “Army of Davids” theme, Glenn Reynolds gets this exactly right:

[W]hat the GOP apparat does is less important nowadays than it was. As I noted before, there’s a whole lot of disintermediation going on here — Scott Brown got money and volunteers via the Internet and the Tea Party movement, to a much greater degree than he got them from the RNC. Smart candidates will realize that, too.

As will the entrenched Republican leaders.  They will make every attempt to co-op this energy and this source of hope (not that I don’t remain skeptical about “tea party” meetups per se), and ultimately they will succeed on one level or another.  The question is, will independent, principled conservatives at least extract an appropriate price — not platform planks or sops, but fundamental change in how the party works on an ongoing basis?

It’s hard to be hopeful.  John McCain was so wrong in how he went about trying to unhinge money and politics, but he was so right about the scope and profundity of the problem.  Here Brown won in no small measure because he took everyone, including the GOP leadership, by surprise, and he may have a bit of fun for a while because he owes them very little (did you see the musical “Fiorello”?).

In the long run, history has never shown such a dynamic to be sustainable.  And yet, while we may dispair of completing the work, we are not free to abstain from it, either.  So let’s roll!

Posted in Politics and Poker, Stragety | Leave a Comment »

There’s no such thing as “underfunded” for our Uncle

Posted by Ron Coleman on January 5, 2010

Kenneth Anderson asks, are underfunded public pensions underfunded public pensions $2 trillion in “stranded” costs?

One question about these obligations is whether taxpayers will stick around to pay them, or instead will vote with their feet. . . . Many of these pension obligations have been incurred by municipalities and others by states, and in some cases the obligations are intertwined. But what happens if voters-taxpayers move out? The assumption has long been that taxpayers are stuck, on account of jobs and other circumstance. But query whether that is necessarily true as the baby boom generation retires.

That’s why the baby boom generation won’t ask us.  This will be will “resolved” by the stroke of a pen — the same moral hazard pen that bails out everything else; and why should state governments be worse than all the other failed states of corporate America?

Federalization, people.  We can run, but we can’t hide.  (Via Insty.)

Posted in Gelt, Politics and Poker, Sisyphus | Leave a Comment »

Best of 2009: “Was Rosen really right?”

Posted by Ron Coleman on December 31, 2009

This was posted on July 16, 2009.

Hm. Instapundit cites Randy Barnett, who writes:

When [Jeffrey] Rosen published his critique [of Sonya Sotomayor], I knew very little about Sotomayor. After forcing myself to watch much of the hearings, I wonder if those who criticized him then are having any second thoughts today.

I am having second thoughts about my own measured enthusiasm for Sotomayor, which was based on a selfish interest in a particular area of law plus what I believed was the range of options from this Administration, yes.

But do I have second thoughts about my criticism of Jeffrey Rosen (it’s buried in here; and no, I don’t think Jennifer Rubin meant me when she asked the question)?

No. Rosen’s article seemed rushed, and was based on very few specifics, and a lot of anonymous sources. The specifics were also very pedestrian. She was obviously vulnerable on Ricci v. DeStefano, but, well, “everyone” knew that — I am sure that that includes Randy Barnett. If her opinion in Ricci was that bad (and evidently it was!), why couldn’t Rosen give us six more such-a’s? That was his job as a reporter.

To the contrary, Rosen is to be criticized not only for pulling back from his original view so he wouldn’t lose out on invitations to all the right parties, but for writing such a damned lazy legal journalism article when in fact there may have been not only smoke but some fire to report. There’s a lot of that going around.

I also didn’t, and still don’t, think much of this slam by Jennifer Rubin, also cited by both Glenn and Randy:

The question is not whether Sotomayor will get through, but why the president felt so compelled to select her. If he was desperate to find a Latina, he should have found a wise one.

Talk about “wise.” I know wisdom is not the same as intelligence, but I don’t think Jennifer Rubin has the slightest inclination to make that distinction here. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Best of the Blog, Lex scripta, Medialites, Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

Best of 2009: “The Specter circus”

Posted by Ron Coleman on December 30, 2009

This was first posted on May 7, 2009.

Oh, man. Okay, let’s say one more blog post on this Arlen Specter for the week. Check this out — a rundown of primo Specter humiliations from the Washington Post:

• Specter pronounced that he would be keeping his seniority when he announced his party switch last week — maintaining that his ability to deliver for the state would not be diminished in any way shape or form by his move across the aisle. Except, that wasn’t exactly right. The Senate’s approval of Specter’s junior status on a series of committees led to a “he said, he said” between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and the newest member of his caucus. Asked about the back and forth by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday, Reid stood his ground saying simply: “He is a person who’s been in the Senate since 1980. I think he should be able to handle himself.”

Now, that’s a caucus you want to join, eh! “I want to thank you all for your hospitality and for welcoming me to your — hey! Where’s my wallet?!” Next:

• In a sitdown with the New York Times’ Deborah Solomon, Specter said he was hoping that the Minnesota courts would do “justice” and declare former Republican Sen. Norm Coleman the winner in the contested 2008 election. Whoops! Specter tried to walk the comment back [and] told Reid that he briefly “forgot what team I was on.”

Whoops! Come again? Here’s the actual report in the Times:

He voted against the Democrats in his first two big votes since the switch, opposing the Democratic budget and helping defeat a measure to allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages for troubled homeowners.

And on Tuesday night, he retracted a statement, made in an interview, in which he said the Minnesota courts should rule in favor of the Republican, Norm Coleman, in the state’s disputed Senate race.

Republican press releases snipe at his every misstep.

And the comment about Minnesota, where Democrats need Al Franken to become their crucial 60th vote in the Senate, prompted the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, to confront Mr. Specter on the Senate floor.

“Arlen,” Mr. Reid said in his trademark low-volume growl, “What’s going on here?”

Mr. Specter replied that he had forgotten “what team” he was on. Later, he told a reporter: “I conclusively misspoke.”

Because it’s the team you’re on that tells you which side of a court case is in the right. Did I ever mention to you he used to be a prosecutor? The last one of the trifecta, from the Post story, is this:

• Specter has done little to back off his initial assertion that his decision to switch parties was based almost entirely on political calculations and had little to do with ideology. While most party switchers are almost certainly guided by personal political concerns (what politician isn’t?), most don’t come right out and say it because it is a turnoff for voters who want to believe that their politicians believe in, well, something.

It’s just that open and obvious.

Has it become pathetic? It has. In so many ways.

And I feel sorry for him, frankly. I guess that’s why I’ll never be reliable politically. I always find it pitiable to watch a man fall from grace, regardless of whether he brought it on himself, as Senator Specter surely did. And no matter what else, and no matter how much he wishes he hadn’t done this — and I bet that now he actually does wish he hadn’t, because a man in the service of his ego alone cannot be enjoying this one bit — it can’t be undone. Quite unlike Arlen Specter himself.

Posted in Best of the Blog, Heart and spirit, Narcissus Rex, Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

Peace in our time

Posted by Ron Coleman on December 22, 2009

Iran’s nuclear arsenal is a problem for which the blame can be shared across all Western regimes.  And I don’t blame Russia, China or North Korea, really, because they’re doing exactly what Russia, China and North Korea will do.  But this is not a Republican or a Democrat thing; it’s a disaster thing and a lack of guts thing and a collective-action-dilemma thing.

So here’s the thing:

The international community can give Iran “as many deadlines as they want, we don’t care,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech to thousands of supporters in the southern city of Shiraz.

Ahmadinejad dismissed the threat of sanctions, saying Iran wants talks “under just conditions where there is mutual respect.”

“We told you that we are not afraid of sanctions against us, and we are not intimidated,” he said, addressing the West. “If Iran wanted to make a bomb, we would be brave enough to tell you.”

As the crowd cheered: “We love you, Ahmadinejad,” the Iranian leader lashed out at Washington, vowing Iran will stand up against U.S. attempts to “dominate the Middle East.”

If you wanted to make up a scenario where a modern-day, psychologically dented, ideologically bizarre and, natch, antisemitic regime vaulted itself into great power status and the ability to threaten the whole world with (small H) holocaust … and said all the leader of that country had to do was follow the Hitler-at-Munich playbook to a T … in what possible respect would it look any different from how Iran looks right now?

Cross-posted on Right Wing News.

Posted in Orient, Past is prologue, Politics and Poker, Sisyphus, Stragety | Leave a Comment »

The wealth in Commonwealth

Posted by Ron Coleman on December 14, 2009

If America — if the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts — need anything right this very minute, it’s what? Above the Law answers:

“A public law program will fill a conspicuous gap in the Commonwealth’s public higher education curriculum,” said UMass president Jack Wilson. “It will give our students the public law option that exists in 44 other states… . This is about students and about educational opportunity. It is not about which private law school may face more competition.”

Oh please. This is not about the students. And it’s certainly not about educational opportunity — unless by “opportunity” you mean the invitation to saddle yourself with tens of thousands of dollars of debt in exchange for a degree from an unaccredited law school in the midst of the worst market for legal jobs anybody can remember.

We all know what this is about: money. Lenders have it, the state wants it, the financial future of citizens of the Commonwealth be damned.

Right, mainly.  I mean, no one is making these people go to law school.  It’s not as if there already enough dummies out there with pigskins, and even we geniuses are barely getting by.

Still, though, the crass cynicism is breathtaking, no?

Posted in Edumacallit, Gelt, Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

Sublime to ridiculous and back again

Posted by Ron Coleman on November 22, 2009

I guess it’s just so much easier to find a label for someone, no matter how idiotic the proposition is, than to articulate meaningful criticism.  It wasn’t all that long ago that we were hearing that Obama, who is merely big-government liberal, was a Red (click the picture).  This morning it’s even better:

DAVE KOPEL EXPLAINS: President Obama Is Not A Jihadi. “There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that our President is a jihadi.”

Kopel seems to see it the same way; as he explains in his own short piece,

Jihadi, Commie... whatever

Jihadi, Commie... whatever

My view is that there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that our President is a jihadi. . . .

One portion that didn’t make the cut was my equating the allegation of “jihad?” with the earlier claims of some mean-spirited extremists that President Bush was as evil as Hitler.

True that, but of course no one’s surprised about that “editorial” cut.  It’s still depressing that “our side,” or what I once thought was “our side,” has descended to this.

I am telling you, I was there, as a small-time activist for my state GOP and on campus as well, during the Reagan years.  Despite what they said about us, we were occupying the moral high ground — and the intellectual high ground.  It was the professors and so forth who were sputtering with epithets about us, but we were promoting ideas, not labels.  We took pride in that.

Depressing to what it’s come to, but, again, not surprising.

Posted in Medialites, Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

Which side are you on?

Posted by Ron Coleman on November 15, 2009

Instapundit links to IraqPundit (sigh), who says like this:

Will [Khalid Sheik Mohamed] beat the Americans at their own game? This is what Iraqis are asking about the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. It’s hard to say how many are paying close attention, but some Iraqis are watching the developments. The most common answer I’m hearing is that yes, KSM will win.

Ah, so that’s how you get onto the front page of the biggest right of center blog these days:  Anonymously quote anonymous foreigners of no particular (known) credentials to the effect that something will go badly — very badly — for the United States in foreign policy.

Not hoping that it happens that way, mind you.  Not at all.

Well, I will say this much.  If the Obama Administration really wants to make political points, they will do so by making their tactic pay off big for American interests, because the knee-jerk right has certainly set the stage and indeed leaked the script (i.e., that it is the Bush Administration that is being put on trial here, with a war criminal as proxy for the American left) for a disastrous finale.

Which outcome should Americans hope for, again?  Which “side” are we on?

Posted in Orient, Politics and Poker, Stragety | Leave a Comment »