Sunday, January 29, 2012

Kelly's problem is Kelly

I have to say that in many ways I don't care about Jack Kelly's column today. Kelly has written columns in the past lecturing us about how much more intelligent Sarah Palin, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum are smarter than smug liberals think. Now he is sorting out in his own mind but aloud to all of us how Romney could win Florida and cinch the nomination.

Actually, it is not at all clear to me whether Kelly really wants Romney or would be willing to accept Newt Gingrich despite his having "more baggage than Amtrak". Kelly mentions "They know Mr. Gingrich is bombastic, stretches the truth, been a jerk to his ex-wives, and been known to modify his principles when his palm was crossed with enough silver.". Yet Kelly also talks about how Gingrich stands up to "Wall Street-Washington elite" and "Mr. Gingrich stands up to biased, condescending journalists who slant questions and play gotcha.". Apparently it's OK when Kelly describes Gingrich's faults, but when a journalist who is not a self-described conservative does the same, he/she is biased and condescending.

By the way, "Wall Street-Washington elite"? I mean, he's got a point, a lot of Obama's economic advisors are from Wall Street, but as Bill Maher put it "Hank Paulson". But then I guess Jack Kelly has thrown George W Bush under the bus. Or maybe not, we don't know, he ignores the inconvenient.

Kelly finishes by quoting extensively from Andrew McCarthy of the National Review. Romney can't win by attacking the competition, and Romney needs to convince us that he is the most conservative candidate who can win. Why didn't the PG just print Andrew McCarthy's piece from the NRO, since apparently Jack Kelly has no original thoughts of his own.

But more than that, the primary is about selecting a candidate for the general election. So, fine, the Republicans can select a conservative to run against Obama's supposed liberalism, but what ever happened to having ideas? After all, Romney was not a public servant when he worked at Bain Capital, and it shows. They created few, if any, jobs, and for every company they "turned" around, there is at least one and maybe more that they simply carved up and disposed of. And in any event, Republicans keep saying the government can't create jobs, yet they want to present Romney as a jobs creator?

Kelly says Romney will do better if he "clearly, concisely, constantly on jobs, spending and debt, corruption, crony capitalism, national defense". But when Kelly says that, he doesn't mean present the facts, he means present the lies.

Obama could be vulnerable on Civil Liberties, and to some extent on the way Obama chose to try to accommodate Republicans rather than to push his own agenda. But to attack Obama on those points would be to risk Democrats bringing up George Bush's record on civil liberties, and to risk admitting Republicans did not even try to compromise just to help struggling American citizens. It doesn't work for Republicans to say to voters ‘We couldn't let you have that temporary highway construction job because government can't create jobs; you will get a much better job eventually when the government no longer protects worker safety and the air we breathe and the water we drink’. Well, Republicans can’t say that to voters, although they may well be saying something like that to (wealthy) donors.

And maybe that is the point. Republicans need to find the candidate most acceptable to the Koch Brothers, and then let Frank Luntz use a couple of billion dollars to find the right lies about Obama to make the Republican candidate slightly less distasteful.

And Jack Kelly’s seemingly beloved Tea Party are simply the “R” button pushers, kind of the same way Republicans complain about unions. Except that unions were born out of a desire of workers to help each other, while I would argue that the Tea Party was born of anger and resentment, partially at wealthy elites and also the urban poor. Republican elites will focus that anger at the poor, and deflect the anger at the rich. And Jack Kelly will be part of that.


Winding down said...

EH said
...."Obama's supposed liberalism, but what ever happened to having ideas?"

Liberal "new "ideas = spend more money

Dept of Energy, Dept of Education...has our energy or education situation improved in the last 30+years?

Another trillion of debt ..a t here and a t there ..pretty soon you'll be talking some serious dollars.

I am for ...oh WTF!

A pox on all of them...

I like Soros ..doesn't get his hands dirty in the currency speculation bidnes....clean carbon emissions

Winding down said...

For a Prius driver...btw zippy did a green speech last week and departed the venue in 22 yes 22 carbon guzzling SUVs


VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: What We Do Not Want To Hear Anymore. His conclusion: “Human nature and the laws of physics, not technocratic liberalism, are still the best guides to the madness around us. Money borrowed has to be paid back or the debt eaten by someone, period. Poverty is defined by a want of material necessities, not by lacking the appurtenances that someone else better off enjoys. Gas and oil are miracle fuels and it is very hard to find alternate energies at comparable costs and reliability. And as a rule, the green class of environmental elites usually uses more fossil fuels per capita than do the muscular classes who mine and drill them out of the ground — and who do not jet, drive, or live in the comparable fashion of their critics.”

Posted at 10:38 am by Glenn Reynolds  

Winding down said...


Is it unfair to compare the Obama and Reagan economic recoveries? No
By James Pethokoukis
January 28, 2012, 9:11 am
Ronald Reagan inherited a Long Recession. The economy declined 0.3 percent in 1980, grew at a subpar 2.5 percent in 1981, and then plunged 1.9 percent in 1982. The lengthy downturn was really the culmination of more than a decade of bad economic policy. But the Reagan Recovery was stunning. GDP rose 4.5 percent in 1983 and 7.2 percent in 1984. It was Morning in America, and Reagan won reelection by a landslide.

Barack Obama also inherited a Long Recession. According the National Bureau of Economic Research, the U.S. economy entered recession in 2007 and stayed there until June 2009. But the Obama Recovery has been terribly weak. The economy grew at a 2.8 percent pace in the second half of 2009, 3.0 percent in 2010, and — according to new Commerce Department data – 1.7 percent in 2011. We’ll see what happens in the 2012 election, but Obama’s current approval rating is 43 percent, according to Gallup.

As economist Lawrence Kudlow of CNBC notes:

After 10 quarters of recovery, the Reagan growth rate was 6 percent. Compare that with Obama’s 2.4 percent. Or compare Obama’s 2.4 percent with the 4.6 percent post-World War II average recovery rate after 10 quarters.

But Obamacrats and other liberals say the Reagan-Obama comparison is unfair. After all, Reagan didn’t have to deal with a collapsed housing bubble. Obama, they contend, was dealt an near-impossible hand and played it about the best he could. Americans needs to lower their expectations, and Reaganites need to quit making the comparison.

The reality: Housing is usually a key contributor to GDP growth during the early stages of a recovery. As a 2011 St. Louis Fed analysis points out, “Somewhat surprisingly, the housing component of GDP (more formally known as residential investment) tends to be a solid contributor to GDP growth during a recovery. Historically, residential investment has contributed only about 5 percent of GDP—a small share considering the consumption component is close to 70 percent. Nevertheless  …  it can contribute substantially to the GDP growth rate for short periods of time.”

According to Commerce Department data, residential investment added 1.33 percentage points to GDP in 1983, 0.64 in 1984. By contrast, residential investment subtracted 0.11 percentage point in 2010 and 0.03 in 2011.  (See chart below.)

But here’s the thing: Subtract the housing rebound from the Reagan Recovery and GDP still grows twice as fast as during the Obama Recovery. For example, the economy grew 7.2 percent in the second full year of the Reagan Recovery. Without residential investment, it would have grown 6.6 percent vs. 1.7 percent growth in 2011, Obama’ s second full year of recovery. Score one for the Gipper … and for supply-side/Schumpeterian economics over demand-side/Keynesian economics.

Winding down said...

Tryin to broaden your horizons ...

Scaifes rag shud not be your only window to conservative

No need to thank me and judging by past postings, no response will be forthcoming.

Winding down said...

My economic expertise consists of being able to keep income ahead of outgo. Ceteris paribus.

EdHeath said...

WD, five comments? C'mon, if you want a discussion, post once and wait. I mean, enthusiasm is good, but you don't want to overwhelm a topic (not that I get so many commenters). You are welcome to comment as much as you like, but if possible, a little patience would be appreciated.

In your first comment, the sentence you reference is about the Republicans. I stand by the statement that Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and the rest of the Republican party are not only not giving us new ideas, but actually advocating hazardous ones.

Not that there isn't some to complaints about Obama. But seriously, no new energy in 30 years. I mean education, maybe, but you won't convince anyone (thoughtful) about energy.

Hanson clearly doesn't understand economics. How did we pay off the debt of world War II? Check out Krugman (you may have to search). Not that we may have that answer available this time, but Hanson either doesn't understand, or is deliberately not saying.

Reagan's recession was close to the Great Depression? Stagflation was unique, but no where near what George Bush did to America.

All that you have done is convince me even more that conservatives are bankrupt in the ideas department. Obama, as bad as he may be, is better than the stuff you presented.