Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Archive for the ‘Politics and Poker’ Category

Specter of defeat

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 29, 2009

“Specter: I’m not an automatic 60th vote” Not an automatic 60th vote”?  Really!  Then this is news! He really is “switching”!

There’s more:

In a statement, Specter said he does not want to be “judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.”

Actually, that’s the part that Politico, for some reason, chose to excerpt.  I actually saw this, via a the Google Talk status message of my friend the Punning Pundit:

I am unwilling to have my 29-year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.

Punning didn’t seem too ironic about it, but I was floored by this.  These words might constitute the single most arrogant expression of entitlement to power that I have ever heard a politician utter.

At least for public consumption.

UPDATE:  Check out John Hawkins on this.

Posted in Narcissus Rex, Politics and Poker | 2 Comments »

Socialismesque?

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 13, 2009

Remember this big-deal post?  It got Instalanched and everything, and I was written off by many an otherwise friendly right-winger for it:

Just as we remember it: Socialism, fundamentally, is premised on the non-private ownership of at least some of the means of production. Obviously at best the only argument you can make for Obama-as-socialist, based on the sound bite quoted above, is that he is a “social democrat,” i.e., one who “propose[s] selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs.”

So: What industry did Barack Obama propose to nationalize in his remarks, or in any remarks?

None. He proposed none, and in all probability he never will.

Harry Truman — now there was a socialist. He tried to nationalize the entire steel industry. But what would conservatives give today for a world full of Democrats like Truman?

People, you don’t have to be a socialist to be “dangerous” as a matter of economics, budget, tax policy, or, for that matter, liberty. But if you want healthy economies, balanced budgets, fair taxes — and liberty — you have to know your political economy, and you have to know who is and who isn’t a Red, if only to maintain your own credibility as loyal opposition.

Well, now Instapundit quotes the following from Jonathan Macey, which challenges my premise (not by name) considerably:

To socialize the American economy, it is not necessary to nationalize every business in the United States. All it requires is to put the corporations that control the finances of all of the companies in the economy under government control. And that is what is happening now. . . .

The initial forceful injection of capital into hundreds of financial institutions, however, is another story. It is the first step in an ongoing process to socialize American finance. When this process is complete, every company in the U.S. that needs capital will first have to curry favor with some federal agency or politician. Solid business plans and prospects for growth and profitability will be far less important than diversity plans and political connections.

We’re at the start of an unprecedented foray by the federal government into the governance of private-sector companies. . . .

Is he really describing socialism, though? Or just plain lousy, or maybe even catastrophic, over-regulation of the financial sector?

I don’t see socialism here.  Disaster?  Tragedy?  Whatever.  Red October?  Not quite.  Enlighten me if I’m wrong.

Posted in Gelt, Oppression, Politics and Poker | 6 Comments »

Nasty man

Posted by Ron Coleman on April 7, 2009

The Times reports that Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor of New York who has everything, now also has a pretty sleazy — and by all indications, gratuitous — campaign dirty trick to his credit.  It’s push-polling to slime his rival for the mayoralty, Anthony Weiner:

As his campaign sought to overpower any candidate considering challenging him, Mr. Bloomberg commissioned a telephone poll last month that spread derogatory information about Representative Anthony D. Weiner, one of the mayor’s possible rivals in the race.

The calls came around mid-March, even as Mr. Weiner announced he was not certain he would run for mayor.

In interviews, several people who received the telephone calls said that they were told when they picked up the phone that a survey was being conducted, but were soon asked a series of questions featuring negative information about Mr. Weiner.

The questions began benignly enough: Are you registered to vote? Do you plan to vote in the mayoral election? But then they shifted to Mr. Weiner, asking whether the person’s views of Mr. Weiner would be altered if he or she knew of certain problems involving Mr. Weiner, from missing votes in Congress to having difficulty keeping staff to accepting campaign donations from foreign fashion models.

I like Mike, even if he is a bit of a reckless scofflaw.  He’s running for the post of Mayor for Life, of course, and that raises the problem:  We loved Ed Koch, who was — in so many ways — no Mike Bloomberg, and vice-versa.  But that third term… oofah.  That left a mark.

There is something unhealthy about it, as there is regarding any unnatural attachment to state power (via Insty).  Maybe we’re starting to get a preview of what that something might look like for Mike.  All power, all the time.

Posted in Metropolis, Narcissus Rex, O Mores!, Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

The sweet spot

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 22, 2009

Scoble’s love-hate relationship with Facebook is on the upswing. He explains First, you’ve gotta realize that in Facebook is “moving from phase four to phase five” out of seven in its development cycle right now, and that in each phase there’s been push-back from users and threats of rebellion:

Here’s the phases of Facebook:

Phase 1. Harvard only.

Phase 2. Harvard+Colleges only.

Phase 3. Harvard+Colleges+Geeks only.

Phase 4. All those above+All People (in the social graph).

Phase 5. All those above+People and businesses in the social graph.

Phase 6. All those above+People, businesses, and well-known objects in the social graph.

Phase 7. All people, businesses, objects in the social graph.

Phase 5 is known as when Facebook is really going to find its business model. This is why Mark Zuckerberg is absolutely correct to say he can’t listen to people who wants Facebook to get stuck in Phase Four. It was a nice phase, yes, when Facebook only had people in the social graph, but those days are over. . . .

Zuckerberg is a real leader because he doesn’t care what anyone thinks. He’s going to do what he thinks is best for his business. I wish Silicon Valley had more like him.

Look,on the other end of the spectrum from elitism and tone-deafness as to the people you’re serving — the most typical, though partly unfair, criticism of Detroit — is demagoguery, which gives you both bad government, P.T. Barnum-quality attractions and a short-term mentality.  And of course we’re not talking about courtesy and deference here.  We’re talking about business planning.  More:

My former boss, Jim Fawcette, used to say that if you asked a group of Porsche owners what they wanted they’d tell you things like “smoother ride, more trunk space, more leg room, etc.” He’d then say “well, they just designed a Volvo.”

When a client tells me he wants me to run each and every microdecision and communication by him, I tell him to find someone who happens to have a law license who will sell him those services; I’m a lawyer, and that’s not what I do for living.  I sell experience, judgment and insight, and I stand behind my work in the long run.

And don’t think for a second that if I gave him the first option, he wouldn’t hold me responsible for the down-side anyway.

Your customers and clients can’t call the shots.  At least not all at once, and certainly not when they’re just reacting to change, which they will usually do negatively. Clients can choose to hire someone who operates their way or my way, something in between or something even far beyond me in terms of detachment.  It’s true in every field.  Finding that sweet spot between delivering a product or service that your customer or client will want to come back for, not just tomorrow but in a year, is what it’s all about. It’s the difference between “true democracy” and republican government; the House and the Senate; junk food and nutrition; TV and the stage.  Why, Scoble has probably even figured out how to get my knees to stop hurting when I walk up the stairs.

But for now, I like his point about business.  Of course, it helps if, like Zuckerberg, you’re not charging customers any money yet, and you’re not quite risking the massive equity of a legacy brand leader with dominant marketing share — see New Coke.

Listen to your customers, yes; obey them, no. (Via Techmeme.)

Posted in Futurama, Gelt, Politics and Poker, Social networking, Stragety | 4 Comments »

Geithnergeist

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 19, 2009

Jimmy at the Sundries Shack thinks we’re in the final days, and that the bus just may be experiencing that sickening “bump” any time now.

I can’t imagine the Administration acknowledging having erred on this choice so fast and so straightforwardly.  And besides, is this really something conservatives want to cheer for — the sacrifice of a single scapegoat over a comprehensively poorly executed, much less conceived, policy of stunning scale?

Yeah, I thought so.

Posted in Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

Award winning journalism

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 16, 2009

Instapundit features David Frum’s coming-out Newsweek cover, and a leading contender for his ongoing efforts to garner a “Strange New Respect” award.

The stomach, it turns.

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

Did someone say “intellectual”?

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 12, 2009

Via Glenn Reynolds, it appears that someone is questioning the crammed-down concept of “Obama the intellectual.”  Indeed, that’s one of the themes of the last couple of days, as his Harvard Law Review “experience” is being questioned as well.

Only I already asked that question in a post called, well, “Obama the Intellectual?”  In June.  As I said regarding another fabulously credentialed young Democratic President:

Intellectuals are as intellectuals do. Bill and Barack utilized their credentials, as they had every right to and as almost everyone else does, as stepping stones toward the realization of their grand ambitions. But neither of them can in any way be credited as having demonstrated a genius for anything other than achievement of that ambition. And this is not the same, we should recall, as a genius for leadership or government, with which we might credit a Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan. Neither man can be credited with being the moving or creative force behind the building of any great institution, public or private; of a noteworthy government program, initiative or policy; or a political movement that transcended the political institutions of their time and place.

Posted in Edumacallit, Medialites, Politics and Poker | 14 Comments »

The libertarian moment?

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 11, 2009

Glenn Reynolds points to Reason TV and “Why you’re living in the libertarian moment. ….”

I’ve suggested otherwise more than once, unless by “moment” we mean a passing pulse of time — then, perhaps, that’s about right.

But libertarianism is neither the default position of human affairs, nor, as an all-encompassing program, is it practical, sustainable or moral.  Read my post here and perhaps you will want to engage on this issue.  For even if this is that moment; and even if it is a longer moment than some of us would want, as of right now libertarianism isn’t even getting pushback from the non-evangelical traditional Right.

Well, that’s not right!

Posted in Heart and spirit, Homo sapiens, O Mores!, Oppression, Politics and Poker | 3 Comments »

Fool’s gold

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 4, 2009

Why is the never-ending campaign of President Obama elevating Rush Limbaugh’s profile?

Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House.

The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise.

October?

Gee, has anything changed for Barack Obama, and that praise shower, since… October?

Somethings changed

Something's changed


UPDATE: Still looking golden?

Posted in Medialites, Politics and Poker, Stragety | 13 Comments »

Tea for you

Posted by Ron Coleman on February 28, 2009

Instapundit defends those protesting Davids:

RICK MORAN THINKS THE “TEA PARTY” PROTESTS are amateurish and disorganized. . . .  Of course they’re amateurish. Most of these people have never organized a protest before (hence the tendency to do things like forget bullhorns). That’s what you get at the beginning of a movement. But it’s much bigger news when 200 people with jobs who’ve never protested turn out, than when 20,000 of the usual suspects organized by ACORN or ANSWER march with preprinted signs.

Maybe.  I do like Glenn’s point that they’re amateurish because, well, they’re being done by amateurs — and that’s a refreshing distinction from lefty rent-a-crowds.

But I don’t agree with his prediction later in the post that these “tea parties” will swell till they become swell.

Conservatives don’t really do “protest” so good.  It’s not just because, yes, we’re at our fascist jobs or in our suffocating traditional homes being productive and responsible.  It’s that we’re… conservative people.

That’s okay.

UPDATE:  Well, no, I didn’t quite mean it like that (via I/P).  And I wasn’t really so right, in the sense of the word meaning “correct,” necessarily.

I’m still not so sure I’m so wrong, however.

Posted in Americana, Heart and spirit, Politics and Poker | 1 Comment »