Comments by martin horn

That time again

Anyways, unmentioned is how several Republican Presidential candidates (in election years without a Republican Presidential incumbent) have won Iowa then went on to lose the nomination later.

Since 1980, Iowans liked George H.W. Bush over Ronald Reagan in 1980, Bob Dole over George H.W. Bush in 1988, and Mike Huckabee over John McCain in 2008, going 0/3 in terms of eventual Republican nominees.

George W Bush in 2000 and Bob Dole in 1996 are the only notable exceptions to that trend, putting Iowa's accuracy at choosing the eventual Republican Presidential nominee at 40% (2/5).

That kinda shows that the views of Republican caucus-goers in the Iowa caucuses don't exactly mirror the views of Republicans nationwide.

That time again

Oh gee, who knew that a newspaper based in Britain that advertises itself using slogans like, "It may be lonely at the top, but at least you'll have something interesting to read," might not be exactly, you know, a microcosm of America.

A new year in ethanol

Ugh, edit "Any way you read that, it's clear that in M.S.'s mind, there were scientifically-sound environmentalists opposed to the subsidies who were against the subsidies, but they were unable to argue get them repealed for two reasons:"

Should be:
"Any way you read that, it's clear that in M.S.'s mind, there were scientifically-sound environmentalists who were against the subsidies, but they were unable to get them repealed for two reasons:"

A new year in ethanol

....Actually, if you read M.S.'s blog post, and erwinhaaslibertarian's comment, and my comment which referenced his comment, you'd understand the context of my comment, which is:

M.S. described the attitudes towards corn ethanol as the following:
"Corn ethanol is environmentally damaging; it puts more carbon emissions into the atmosphere over the course of its production and consumption cycle than it takes out, and it uses up cropland that would otherwise be producing food for human or animal consumption. But this point was generally too complicated for environmentalists to make to the general public. And while conservatives are usually theoretically opposed to subsidies, in practice they've either actively backed them for carbon fuel industries, or never done anything to stop them."

Any way you read that, it's clear that in M.S.'s mind, there were scientifically-sound environmentalists opposed to the subsidies who were against the subsidies, but they were unable to argue get them repealed for two reasons:

1. Their arguments were "too complicated" for average folks
2. Conservatives were being hypocrites on the issue of subsidies

Conveniently omitted in that explanation is a third reason:
3. Democrats, even liberal Democrats, were gung-ho about it. As erwinhaaslibertarian points out, the bill was THE CENTERPIECE of the new Democratic-majority in the House of Representatives.

Oops.

I consider myself center-left, but I don't believe in giving liberals a free pass when they're an accomplice to stupidity such as these subsidies.

A new year in ethanol

I agree with MS's overall point, and my cynical heart is somewhat warmed by the news.

But I have to side with erwinhaaslibertarian on one point.
The bill creating these subsidies was passed with BROADDDDD bipartisan support, including from pro-environment democrats.

I still remember the debate. President Bush (believe it or not) was less than enthused by these subsidies. Cynics can point out that he had the luxury of taking the correct stand on the issue because he no longer had to worry about the Iowa caucus, but regardless, I remember Bush opposing it at first.

However....
Democrats, including then Sen. Barack Obama (who was probably looking ahead to the Iowa caucuses) loudly proclaimed how amazing corn ethanol was for the environment. GM was eagerly announcing its line of "blend-fuel" vehicles that used an 85%-15% mix of gasoline and ethanol.

Republicans were sold on the idea of an "All-American" fuel source, fuel "Grown in the fields of Iowa rather than drilled in the sands of Saudi Arabia."

I remember some environmentalists being less than enthused, arguing that if anything we should focus on cellulose based ethanol or importing sugar ethanol from Brazil, but the environmentalists didn't become steadfast against corn ethanol till the science was clear that it sucked in terms of being an anti-global climate change fuel AND probably contributed to famine in developing nations.

MS is right that we have to thank the Tea Party for rekindling the long standing "official" Republican party opposition to subsidies. But it's important to remember Democrats lovvvvvvved Ethanol till they were against it.

The people's choice

Also, again, I feel like this comment platform has the ability to edit comments, and that ability has been specifically disabled (I remember once or twice being able to edit my comments back near when the platform was upgraded a few months ago, but that option isn't available anymore).

I'm not really sure why it's disabled, to be honest.

Are they worried we might write a comment that earns a ton of "Recommends", then abuse the "edit comment" feature and change the content of that highly regarded comment to something terrible, making it appear as though, say, 70 members of the Economist blog reading community endorses puppy massacres?

The people's choice

I really want to agree with this post, but I can't.

If E.G. is arguing its undemocratic for any group to seek to limit the choice of candidates for voters, then she should have shown this much outrage as Mike Huckabee was being urged to quit after it became highly likely (but not definite) McCain had won the Republican nomination in 2008, or the pressure on John Edwards to quit and endorse somewhat to help end the near stalemate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that same year. Given the first-past-the-post voting system we have, without the ability to rank preferences, there's a huge incentive to consolidate voting blocks BEFORE voting, to prevent a situation similar to how then-President George H.W. Bush + Ross Perot earned vote share of 60% in 1992 that led to Democrat Bill Clinton winning the presidency.

If E.G. is arguing that in particular, because of their roles as pastors, they shouldn't be meddling in politics, I'm inclined to agree, EXCEPT Evangelical pastors have been working with Republican party for decades, as have African-American religious leaders, so we're sorta past the point of no return in terms of a religious consensus in favor of staying out of politics.

The quantum mechanics of government

It should be noted that Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did this during the Bush Presidency, holding the pro-forma sessions during the holidays.

And herein lies the issue. Every single Senate, the members of the opposition party (Democratic or Republican) find a new way to stall or hold hostage decisions left to the discretion of the executive branch.

Neither side feels obligated by such quaint things as "common courtesy" anymore.

I predict if President Obama carries out the maneuver Teddy Roosevelt did, the same Republicans who applauded President Bush for recess appointing John Bolton to UN Ambassador will act outraged, and the same Democrats who slammed President Bush for recess appointing John Bolton will praise Obama for circumventing Republican obstruction.

The issue here, ultimately, is a lack of grown-ups in the Senate. If you bother to listen to them speak, it's all, "They did it to us last time, so we're doing it to them this time, Wah Wah Wah!"

And with regards to Neoconservatism itself, one of the nice parts about the Egyptian pro-democracy protests is that they revealed for ALL to see Neoconservatism's hypocrisy.

Neoconservatives, while talking up the Iraq War, emphasized the importance of Arab democracy as a means of limiting Islamic extremism.
When the target of regime change was the anti-Israel Saddam Hussein, they said that argument loud and proud, and loudly denounced opposition to the Iraq Wars as being pro-tyranny, anti-democracy.

During the Egyptian protests, when the person being toppled was the (relatively...) pro-Israel President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Neoconservatives either went silent or criticized Obama for "Letting" Mubarak fall.

Mubarak was a dictator in every sense of the word, but he was more than happy to accept American aid in exchange for playing nice with Israel, and all of a sudden, democracy for Arabs wasn't so amazing anymore in the eyes of neoconservatives.

And that's what people mean when they describe them as "Israel first." When you argue that democracy limits anti-American Islamic extremism, but then oppose pro-democracy movements in nations with Israel-friendly dictators, you're putting Israel first.

With regards to this example...I think it's important to note that while many neoconservatives in government and in public policy think tanks are Jewish, the vast majority of Jewish-Americans are not neoconservative.

That's why I favor just referring to neoconservatives as just "neoconservatives" without mentioning the religious affiliations of people like Paul Wolfowitz, Charles Krauthammer, and Bill Kristol.

Even more brilliant nonsense

Newt Gingrich is a Fannie Mae lobbyist, a twice-admitted adulterer, has changed his opinions on everything from health insurance mandates to global warming, has gotten basic facts wrong on camera, and has hurt the national Republican Party in the past.

He combines all the negative features of Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachmann.

He is a man of poor character, poor integrity, and poor leadership (his campaign staff all quit on him a few months ago) with paltry list of accomplishments.

That's really all that can be said.

Shoot 'em up

Yeah dude. Those of us who play games on 45 inch TVs using controllers with a dozen different buttons will totally switch to the 10 inch iPad to play "games" where our options are tilt left, tilt right, press, and swipe...because they're totally interchangeable...just like horseback riding and driving a Ferrari.

So much for avoiding controversy

Just to make something clear.
Plan B prevents fertilization. It doesn't lead to the loss of a fertilized egg/fetus/"the unborn."

You know that constitutional amendment that apparently not even Mississippi is conservative enough to vote for? It defined life as beginning at fertilization. Note, it doesn't say life begins when the sperm enters the cervix and begins traveling towards an egg to fertilize it. It says, at the moment of fertilization, voila, life.

So those of you saying, "I disagree with allowing Plan B sales because I don't think teenagers should get contraceptives because it encourages underage sex," fine. I disagree with you, but that's an intellectually sound position because Plan B is contraception, and if you dislike all contraception for teens, that's your call.

Those of you saying, "I disagree with allowing Plan B sales because I am pro-life and I don't believe it's right to kill the unborn," guess what? You have no idea what you're talking about. If you believe life begins at fertilization, and this pill PREVENTS fertilization, that means this pill PREVENTS the creation of life, which is not the same thing as killing/aborting a life. You can't kill someone who was never created.

Put another way, saying Plan B is equivalent to abortion is like saying a woman refusing to have unprotected sex with a man is equivalent to abortion. In both cases, a woman's decision prevents sperm from fertilizing an egg.

End of the Cain train

Cain's at 14% now. If all of that supports goes to Gingrich, it's game over for Romney.

I agree with the blogger. I can't really see Cain's supporters (especially those described in the article) loving either Romney or Gingrich.

Then again, I never have expected Gingrich to lead polling for the Republican nomination this close to primary season.

Seems weird that the twice-admitted adulterer Gingrich is leading the race, while another candidate goes down for having an affair...

End of the Cain train

"Herman Cain dropped out after touching the heavens of the nomination polls and plunging back down."

35% is the heavens??

"Herman Cain may only get a sentence in political history books a hundred years from now, but at least he will be in them."

He will most certainly not be in the history books a hundred years from now. History doesn't make note of those who lead in polls for 4 weeks before dropping out without receiving a single vote in a primary or caucus.

Boundaries and turkeys

Sometimes, I wonder why folks like Geller freak out about this stuff when Muslims occupy perhaps 0.005% of the House of Representatives, 0% of the Senate, and 0% of the executive and judicial branch (MUSLIMS ARE TAKING OVER!!11!!!!! DONATE TO MY BLOG SO I CAN KEEP FIGHTING11!#!!#!).

Then I remember they call Europe Eurabia because Muslims are 1% of the population and some areas of some European countries allow for limit forms of Sharia to be practiced, and I realize that expecting reasonable ideas from people who suck at math is my own fault, so I stop wondering about them.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Products & events
Stay informed today and every day

Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.


Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter


See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.