The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
 TeasersiSteve Blog
/
Politics

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

Is Donald Trump cool?

On the one hand, he’s been around forever, his tastes are cheesy/expensive, and the media has, as you may have noticed, been squealing nonstop for months that he’s Not Cool.

On the other hand, he’s not from Flyoverville. He’s about as New York as you can get.

And yet, he’s an old-fashioned in-your-face New Yorker of the kind celebrated by Colin Quinn. But then that’s also the “problematic” type who make new SWPL New Yorkers uncomfortable: What would our stylistic betters in Europe think of this crass American? How could the very American Trump be sophisticated and urbane, like, say, soccer?

Except, that Trump’s winning issue, what has distinguished him from the pack — immigration — is exactly the issue that obsesses Europeans in 2015. For example, above is a new graph from The Economist showing immigration as an important issue in Britain hitting a new historic high in the latest poll.

So Trump is on the cutting edge of Euro fashion.

It’s complicated …

 
• Tags: Euro, Immigration, Politics, Trump 
🔊 Listen RSS
From my new column in Taki’s Magazine on the quantity and quality of births in America:

Yet most articles about birthrates assume intellectual underpinnings that could be based upon talking points from, say, the Toilet Paper Manufacturers Association: As with opinions, everybody’s got one, so the more the better. More toilet-paper consumption is Good for the Economy, and that’s all you need to know. 

One irony is that the quality of births has perhaps been improving during Barack Obama’s tenure. At minimum, quality has not been in a free fall as it was during George W. Bush’s disastrous second administration. But not only can’t Obama mention this on the campaign trail, he probably can’t even formulate the idea without his head exploding.

And yet, illegitimate births are bad for the GOP in the short and long runs.

Read the whole thing there.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
🔊 Listen RSS
I actually like Mitt Romney, but I have no idea if he’ll make a good President. 

One concern I’ve heard is the notion that he’s a prime product of the general healthiness of Mormon culture. Mormons try to set up their lives to have a lot of good influences from other Mormons around them. But it gets pretty lonely in the White House, and it’s a new set of challenges. (Also, despite his looks, he’s not young anymore.)

By way of analogy, think of the late Neil Armstrong. He was a prime product of the general healthiness of mid-20th Century American culture (which Mormons continue continue to espouse, which is why they are considered so weird and creepy today). American culture had systems in place that produced a lot of competent, brave, altruistic, and modest people, few more so than Armstrong. And part of that modesty was that he didn’t much mind being viewed less as a unique superman and more as proof that the systems worked. He didn’t run for President.

Today, we have a sense that our society’s general systems don’t work that well, so we are more invested in longshot hopes placed upon space oddities like Obama.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
🔊 Listen RSS
We heard over and over again that Obama’s Administrative Amnesty was a political masterstroke, but now the polls are finally in and the Washington Post reports “No Immigration Bounce for Obama.” It turns out that — What do you know? — immigration is a bad issue for Obama, especially in swing states (in red above — and, no, I don’t know what the right half of the graph means.)

What does make a difference is the sheer racial change created by immigration. If the U.S. still had the demographics of 1980, Obama would likely lose as badly as Carter. As brilliant GOP strategic thinkers like Rove, Bush, and McCain argued, therefore the Republicans should speed up demographic change.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
🔊 Listen RSS
From the WSJ:

Mitt Romney promised Latino leaders a long-term fix for immigration policy and short-term relief for immigrants in a speech Thursday that was notably softer in tone than when he was battling to win the Republican presidential nomination. 

In a calibrated attempt to attract Latino voters without alienating some in his own party, Mr. Romney spoke of bipartisan solutions he would pursue as president. He pledged … to let those with advanced degrees remain in the U.S. …

Now, that’s some brilliant politicking, Mitt: With your speech to Latino leaders today, you’ve definitely picked up some of that crucial voting bloc of Hispanic American citizens who are closely related to illegal immigrants with advanced degrees. You just keep listening to what the WSJ and NYT tell you and you can’t go wrong.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
🔊 Listen RSS
Here are excerpts from a review I published in VDARE.com in 2003 of a book written by Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren and her daughter:

Huge numbers of mothers entered the labor force over the last few decades. And the inflation-adjusted price of food, clothing, appliances, electronics etc. dropped sharply. So how come we don’t feel like we’ve got a lot more discretionary income than our single-income parents had? 

A wise and readable new public policy book called The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke provides a simple answer: 

We don’t have more discretionary income than our single-income parents had. 

The mother and daughter team of Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren and former McKinsey consultant Amelia Warren Tyagi explain: “The average two-income family earns far more today than did the single-breadwinner family of a generation ago. And yet, once they have paid the mortgage, the car payments, the taxes, the health insurance, and the day-care bills, today’s dual-income families have less discretionary—and less money to put away for a rainy day—than the single-income family of a generation ago.” 

The two authors note: “The brunt of the price increases has fallen on families with children. Data from the Federal Reserve show that the median home value for the average childless individual increased by 23 percent between 1983 and 1998 … (adjusted for inflation). For married couples with children, however, housing prices shot up 79 percent—more than three times faster.” 

For example, in August, the median price of a single-family home in pleasant, suburban Ventura County west of Los Angeles was $480,000. 

Many economists shrug that this vast rise in prices increases Americans’ net worth. “But that net worth isn’t worth anything,” the two women point out, “unless a family plans to sell its home and live in a cave, because the next house the family buys would carry a similarly outrageous price tag.” 

… The biggest single cause of this growing financial stress on middle-income parents: the breakdown of much of the public education system. As Warren and Tyagi note, “Even as millions of mothers marched into the workforce, savings declined, and not, as we will show, because families were frittering away their paychecks on toys for themselves or their children. Instead, families were swept up in a bidding war, competing furiously with one another for their most important possession: a house in a decent school district… ” …

But what causes “bad schools”? 

Here the authors play it coy. I can hardly blame them. Almost everybody uses “bad schools” as a euphemism. Who wants to become a pariah for telling the truth?   

And for a book about the economics and law of personal bankruptcy, The Two-Income Trap is full of well-crafted zingers. I came away just plain liking these two ladies and their down-to-earth approach based on both formal data and the realities of daily life. 

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
🔊 Listen RSS
It’s a truism in the study of politics in the Third World that the real test of democracy is not voting a president in but voting him (and his party and/or relatives) out. 

That’s true in the First World, too. For example, I was a little surprised in 1981 that The Economist was relatively enthusiastic that in the French election that year the Socialist Mitterand had taken power from the Gaullist Giscard d’Estaing and immediately set about soaking the rich. But, the magazine pointed out, the last time there had been a substantive change of power in France was in 1958 when de Gaulle came to office and that was during the mutiny of the French Army in Algeria, which had seized Corsica and was threatening to seize Paris. So, the defeat of the Gaullists and their good grace in accepting that defeat by, you know, leaving office marked a milestone in the maturation of French politics. 

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 as the first black president of the United States was widely celebrated as marking a step forward in American history. But nobody gave much thought at the time about whether large swathes of American voters and elites are mature enough to accept with good grace another step forward: a black man being voted out of the White House. 

The weird, hypersensitive frenzy that has entered American political life since Mitt Romney wrapped up the GOP nomination and the fall campaign began in earnest suggests that many people on the left of center would perceive Obama losing in 2012 not as just one of those things that happens in a democracy, as George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter can attest, but as a Giant Diss to blacks. This potential Triumph of Racism (as they perceive it in their Who-Whom worldview) would be intolerable, so saying almost anything to ward off Obama’s defeat in November is morally justifiable.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: 2012 Election, Politics 
🔊 Listen RSS
Jehu at Chariot of Reaction writes:

Providing adult supervision to government is probably the most winning narrative [Romney] can convincingly put forward—other than the default narrative that I suck a reasonable amount less than does Obama, and the press will actually criticize me when I do evil things, and the permanent bureaucracy will resist my crazier schemes more so than it would resist Obama.  That narrative has the advantage of being God’s honest truth, but it’s unlikely to actually inspire many people. 

Actually aggressively attacking things that people actually hate probably would.  The list of things that the population hates is pretty damned long, but the TSA [i.e., airport security] has bipartisan hatred and even substantial hatred among self-styled cultural elites.  Hang a TSA uniform on Obama and beat him like a pinata.

“Frequent fliers” — the people who make the 7am flight to DFW a few times a month or more — pretty much keep the country running. (I say this as somebody who flies as infrequently as possible.) They wouldn’t be a bad class to cultivate.

“Providing adult supervision to government” — I like that slogan, even if nobody else does.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: 2012 Election, Politics 
🔊 Listen RSS
I review Sean Trende’s new book on whether 2012 will be a realigning election in VDARE. Read the whole thing there.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: 2012 Election, Politics 
🔊 Listen RSS
A French reader writes:

Hello Steve, 

I m one of your long time French readers and I really appreciate the work you are doing. 

I m give you some interresting numbers about the french elections : 

- the difference in term of voters was 1,130 Millions between Sarkozy and Hollande.
Source : http://www.lemonde.fr/resultats-election-presidentielle/ 

- Muslims voters ( church goers – about 2 millions )  are massively leftist. They vote at 93% for Hollande. 

Source :http://www.rue89.com/rue89-presidentielle/2012/05/07/le-peuple-de-droite-est-toujours-la-et-bien-la-231961 

- Jewish from Israel are massively pro Sarkozy ( 92 % of Israel French Jews voted for Sarkozy). 

Source : http://www.rue89.com/rue89-presidentielle/2012/05/07/le-peuple-de-droite-est-toujours-la-et-bien-la-231961 

- Dom Tom ( about 2 millions): black tropical Islands [like Martinique in the West Indies] are aslo massively pro Hollande : about 65 % for Hollande. But not as much black Americans. 

Source :http://www.lemonde.fr/resultats-election-presidentielle/ 

So as Obama, Hollande was not the winners of the white vote. Actually Sarkozy was the large winner of the White. Most of rightist political commenters recommands the Sailer strategy to the right, go righter and whiter. 

Hope to hear your thoughs about it even if you are not a big french politics followers.

Thanks. I can’t read French, so, if you do, check these links out for yourself. There doesn’t seem to be much demographic analysis of the French election available in English.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: France, Politics 
🔊 Listen RSS
From USA Today:

House Democrats will make history in the 2012 election, sending to Congress next January the first women and minority-majority party faction in U.S. history. 

A new analysis by the Cook Political Report reveals a further progression of white flight from the Democratic Party, which is increasingly represented by women and minorities, while the GOP remains a party dominated by white men. 

The projections were calculated by David Wasserman, an election analyst for the non-partisan Cook Political Report, who details the rise of women and minority influence in the Democratic ranks in the latest issue of National Journal magazine out today. 

In 1950, white men constituted 98% of House Democrats — a percentage that fell precipitously to just 53% following the 2010 elections. Based on the makeup of candidates in the current congressional races, Wasserman projects that the 2012 elections will result in a House Democratic Caucus that will be 46%-48% white males when the next Congress starts in January — whether or not Democrats win a majority. 

In contrast, white men continue to make up the vast majority of the Republican Party. In 1950, House Republicans were 97% white men, which fell to just 86% in 2012 — a figure that Wasserman says will remain largely unchanged in the next Congress.

The change in sex ratios doesn’t necessarily mean much: the sterling career of Nancy Pelosi is a continuation of the D’Alesandro family’s political dynasty: her father and brother were both mayors of Baltimore, back when that was a fun job, and her father was in the House before her.

Still, if you look at America’s most globally competitive industries, especially ones that are apparently considered too cool to have to worry much about discrimination lawsuits, such as Silicon Valley and Hollywood, you’ll notice that white men pretty much run everything. 

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Politics 
🔊 Listen RSS
In the U.S., people who are strongly liberal or strongly conservative tend to be better educated and better informed than moderates. Sure, some moderates are moderate because they understand each sides’ arguments perfectly, but many are moderate because they aren’t very interested in politics.

But, what happens when you disentangle the effects of IQ and education from each other?

Heiner Rindermann, the German psychologist who has been doing a lot of interesting IQ work, has co-authored a new paper comparing IQ to ideology among Brazilians, after adjusting for other factors. (I don’t enough about politics in Brazil to say how well this would map to the U.S.)

Rindermann, H., Flores-Mendoza, C. & Woodley, M. A. (2012). Political orientations, intelligence and education. Intelligence, 40(2), 217-225. 

Highlights:
• Intelligence is an attribute of a “burgher” worldview and lifestyle.
• Intelligence works via insight, self-interest, and ethical and cultural effects.
• Intelligence had a positive impact on having a political opinion.
• Intelligence had a positive impact on political centrality.
• Education promoted orientations more to the left. 

Abstract:
The social sciences have traditionally assumed that education is a major determinant of citizens’ political orientations and behavior. Several studies have also shown that intelligence has an impact. According to a theory that conceptualizes intelligence as a burgher (middle-class, civil) phenomenon – intelligence should promote civil attitudes, habits and norms like diligence, order and liberty, which in turn nurture cognitive development – political orientations should be related to intelligence, with more intelligent individuals tending towards less extreme political orientations. In a Brazilian sample (N=586), individuals were given the Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) and a questionnaire measuring age, sex/gender, income, education and political orientations. Firstly, intelligence has a positive impact on having any political opinion. Among persons with opinions those with the highest IQ’s were found to be politically center-right and centrist respectively. The relationship held after correcting for gender, age, education and income. In a path-analysis, only intelligence had a positive impact on political centrality, whereas education promoted orientations that were farther from the center. These results are discussed in the context of results from other studies in different countries and in the context of different theoretical models on the relationship between political attitudes and IQ.

So, at a given level of IQ, more education pushes people either to the left or, less often, toward the right. At a given level of education, more IQ pushes people toward a point a little right of center.  At least in Brazil …

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: IQ, PISA, Politics 
🔊 Listen RSS
Puerto Rico doesn’t have any Electoral Votes, it sends its own national team to the Olympics, it’s a Spanish-speaking imperial possession that’s bribed into staying a possession by huge tax breaks to big American companies like Microsoft to cheat the IRS by nominally taking profits there rather than in America, and if Puerto Rico became a state, it would substantially reduce the chances of the GOP ever regaining control of the Senate by adding two automatic Democratic Senators.

And yet, CBS News reports:

(CBS News) SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – After his main rival [Rick Santorum] ignited a firestorm over requiring Puerto Rico to adopt English as a condition of statehood, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney flew to the island territory today and said he would support no such requirement as president. 

But Romney faced a hurdle of his own in winning the hearts of voters here and their 20 delegates – his opposition to the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent, to the federal bench. She was later chosen by President Obama for a seat on the Supreme Court. 

On the English and statehood issue, Romney said, “I will support the people of Puerto Rico if they make a decision that they would prefer to become a state; that’s a decision that I will support. I don’t have preconditions that I would impose.”

I’m a big fan of Puerto Rican independence.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Politics 
🔊 Listen RSS
Henry Canaday comments:

Here’s another, related hypothesis: 

1. In the early 1970s, Big Media switched from generally favoring the Democratic Party to essentially defining the liberal agenda, with the Democrats piggy-backing on this agenda to hold onto office. 

For example, AFL-CIO boss George Meany, an elderly ex-plumber, went from being The Man for Democratic-leaning newspapers to being an embarrassing relic in a few years.

2. This happened because: a) Big Media had far more presence in front of voter eyeballs, in both news and entertainment, than a Democratic Party badly fractured by Vietnam and Civil Rights; b) Big Media was far more accustomed to pleasing and persuading readers-viewers-voters, since they make a living at this; c) Big Media was more unified in its view of how things should be than even Democratic politicians, who have to deal with different constituencies and with the consequences of dreamy policies. 

3. For the next 20 or 30 years, Dissident Conservative Media, on radio and TV talk shows and in a few publications, devoted itself to opposing the idiocies of the Big Media-Democratic liberal agenda. This Dissident Conservative Media influenced but did not define the Republican Party’s own program. 

4. During roughly the last ten years, Dissident Conservative Media has grown in presence and power and has begun to play the same role for Republicans as Big Media does for Democrats. And for much the same reasons. As media, it has far more daily contact with readers-viewers-voters than the shreds of the old Party organization and more power than even new grass-roots organizations like the Tea Party. As Media, it pleases for its daily bread and is skilled at persuading.  

5. In its role of now defining the Republican Party and conservative agenda, Dissident Conservative Media is affected by some of the same factors that affect Big Media. Certain subjects are simply too unpleasant and difficult to speak about to a general audience, while retaining this audience and the revenue it brings in. These troublesome subjects include race, ethnicity and the transformation of even American whites into a slob-and-slut society. 

6. So Dissident Conservative Media sticks with safer, less-offensive arguments about political principles on foreign policy, domestic policy and market economics.
I don’t think this is the whole explanation, but I think it is at least part of the explanation.

By the way, why do Republican insiders, media and wonk, really want to reclaim the White House in 2012? A second term for Obama would likely be a halcyon age for Dissident Conservative Big Media, while a first term for Romney would likely put them on the snooze-inducing defensive?
My guess is that the real reason Republican apparatchiks in Washington desperately want to win in 2012 is so that they can put in a couple of years as an assistant deputy undersecretary of this or that, making $147k or whatever, then resign and make approaching 7 figures on K Street because they have White House Experience.
Okay, I can understand that. But what’s in it for the rest of us, other than the thrill of seeing Our Team Win?

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Politics 
🔊 Listen RSS
Foreign policy has never appeared to have been of much active interest to Mitt Romney, unlike to, say, Rick Santorum, who can wax eloquent on the Ecuadorian Threat. Romney’s large list of national security advisers is mostly the same cast of idiots who helped get us into these messes distinguished senior statesmen with years of experience with whom Republican primary voters can rest easy knowing that Romney isn’t planning any major changes in the foreign policy mindset that has been such a winner for the GOP in the past.
But how does he really feel? Let’s psychoanalyze Mitt using a minimal set of datapoints (or datapoint). The most memorable political event of his young manhood was when he was on Mormon missionary duty in France in 1967 and his Presidential candidate father announced his newfound opposition to the Vietnam War. When asked why he had changed his mind after announcing his support following a four-day visit to South Vietnam in 1965, George Romney replied:

“I just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get when you go over to Vietnam. Not only by the generals but also by the diplomatic corps over there, and they do a very thorough job.” 

Romney said that sinbce then he had delved into Vietnamese history and “I have changed my mind inb that particularly I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop Communist aggression in Southeast Asia and to prevent Chinese Communist domination of Southeast Asia.”

Romney Sr. was roasted for various reasons for this comment, but, really, it seems like a pretty good two-fold lesson for a loyal son: watch how you say things, but don’t trust the foreign policy establishment. 
But, does anybody have any idea if he drew the second conclusion?
(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Politics 
🔊 Listen RSS
Back in 1993, President Carlos Salinas of Mexico held a private dinner for Carlos Slim and 29 other rich Mexicans to whom he had sold various government monopolies. They all knew he was going to ask for campaign contributions to the ruling PRI party’s 1994 presidential run, but Salinas’s request for 25 million from each was kind of startling. 750 million is a lot of pesos, some grumbled. The president of Mexico replied that he wasn’t demanding 750 million pesos from his guests, he was demanding 750 million dollars.
From the NYT:

A Wealthy Backer Likes the Odds on Santorum 

By JIM RUTENBERG and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

Many more Republicans are taking Mr. Santorum seriously now, thanks to his victories in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado on Tuesday — and perhaps none more than Mr. Romney, for whom Mr. Santorum’s unexpected rise poses another threat from the right. 

Few people played a more pivotal role in Tuesday’s turn of events than Mr. [Foster] Friess.

Is this guy named after the old Foster Freeze ice creams stands? Maybe he was conceived in the parking lot out back of one … (No, it turns out that Mr. Friess is a few years older than the California chain.)

An investor who made millions in mutual funds and now lives in Wyoming, he is the chief backer of a “super PAC” that has helped keep Mr. Santorum’s candidacy alive by running television advertisements on his behalf. 

His role as outside funder — one that Mr. Friess indicated he would continue to play in the contests ahead — escalates the battle among a few dozen wealthy Republicans to influence their party’s choice of a presidential nominee. 

They are exploiting changes to campaign laws and regulations that have allowed wealthy individuals and businesses to pool unlimited contributions into super PACs that in turn have inundated the airwaves with negative advertisements. 

Mr. Friess’s chosen outlet, called the Red, White and Blue Fund, provided critical support for Mr. Santorum as he successfully sought to resuscitate his campaign with victories in Tuesday’s contests. At a time when Mr. Santorum could not afford to pay for a single commercial of his own, the Red, White and Blue Fund focused in particular on Minnesota, where the super PAC supporting Mr. Romney, Restore Our Future, broadcast a last-minute blitz of advertising against him, according to an analysis from Kantar Media/CMAG. 

This is all fascinating, but I’m most interested in how much Foster Friess has put up. America in 2012 is a lot richer than Mexico in 1993, so it’s got to be a big number, right?

But Mr. Friess’s help could prove even more vital in the weeks ahead, as Mr. Santorum tries to capitalize on his upset victories on Tuesday to mount a more assertive challenge to Mr. Romney and to Newt Gingrich, who has an even more deep-pocketed supporter in the billionaire casino executive Sheldon Adelson, one of the richest men in country.

Okay, swell, but enough foreplay. Tell us how much?

… He is relatively rare among the major backers of super PACs for his close association with the religious conservative movement. His Web site quotes Scripture, and he often says that God is “the chairman of my board.” 

He is also rare for his willingness to speak openly about his political giving, a break from Mr. Adelson, who has not spoken publicly about his donations of $10 million, with his wife, to the super PAC supporting Mr. Gingrich…..

Show me the money number!

Campaign filings show that Mr. Friess has given the Red, White and Blue Fund more than 40 percent of its financing as of Dec. 31, or $331,000. He said he had subsequently given more. But he would not say how much, or how much more he may give in the future, joking, “If my wife finds out how much I put into the campaign and Santorum doesn’t win, you’re basically talking suicide.” 

And he played down the significance of his giving, crediting Mr. Santorum with his own victories and noting that another donor — whom he would not name — had chipped in $1 million to the fund and was talking about giving more as of Wednesday morning.

Asked what compelled him to give so much, he said: “No. 1, I think of all the guys that strap a gun on their backs and head to Afghanistan and Iraq to keep us free and safe and maintain what America has stood for. If I put up a million bucks or whatever, it doesn’t seem like much of a sacrifice.”

Microsoft spent $700 million on marketing the introduction of Windows 95. Today, a million dollars would get you about 8 seconds of Super Bowl commercial airtime.

From Wikipedia on Phil Knight, founder of Nike, which spends approaching $2.5 billion on advertising annually:

He is believed to have contributed approximately $230 million to the University of Oregon, the majority of which was for athletics. On August 18, 2007, Knight announced that he and his wife, Penny, would be donating an additional $100 million to the University of Oregon Athletics Legacy Fund. This donation is reportedly the largest in the University’s history. 

His significant contributions have granted him influence and access atypical of an athletic booster. In addition to having the best seats in the stadium for all University or Oregon athletic event, he has his own locker in the football team’s locker room.

So, I’m reading that as Phil Knight giving a minimum of $215 million to U. of Oregon sports teams, primarily the football team, which made the BCS Bowl a year ago. Granted, that’s over a long number of years. Still, $215 million seems like a lot compared to what it apparently takes to get your boy into the hunt for a major party Presidential nomination. Sure, there are lots of rules limiting political contributions, but there are lots of rules limiting amateur athletics, too, and that doesn’t seem to stop the Phil Knights and T. Boone Pickens from spending hundreds of millions to win at college football. And from a hardheaded return-on-investment point of view, surely having your own President has to be more profitable than having your own locker in the football team’s locker room.

The only conclusion I can draw is that a lot of rich American businessmen just care about college football more than they care about politics or political power. Overall, I guess that’s a good thing.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Politics 
🔊 Listen RSS
… as they did today with the Proposition 8 vote against gay marriage on the grounds that majority rule violates minority rights, can they please also throw out Proposition 1A from the same ballot? As you’ll recall, California’s majority of marching morons voted to borrow $10 billion for a SuperTrain! that would go vroom-vroom between Los Angeles and San Francisco real fast. (It’s now expected to cost $98 billion). As a member of California’s endangered and oppressed minority of non-morons, I want the $10 billion back. 

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Politics 
🔊 Listen RSS
The NYT’s top story tonight is:

Backer Pumps $5 Million Into Pro-Gingrich ‘Super PAC’ 

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE42 minutes ago 

The Gingrich campaign got a significant influx of cash from the wife of Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino owner who contributed $5 million to the campaign earlier this month.

One interesting trend is that that these heavy hitter mega-donors like Dr. Miriam Adelson and Haim Saban, a major Democratic contributor, are often dual-citizens who are also big players in Israeli politics. The Adelsons, for example, started a newspaper in Israel that is given away for free to promote Likud. It’s now the biggest newspaper in Israel.

I don’t pay much attention to Israeli politics because I am not an Israeli, but it sounds pretty fascinating, more exciting than American politics. I wonder if the Adelsons see supporting Netanyahu as being good for Gingrich or whether, for them, it’s more that getting Newt elected President would seem good for Bibi. (Personally, I find Bibi more impressive than Newt, but I don’t know how the Adelsons feel.)

Clausewitz said that war is the continuation of politics by other means, but increasingly American politics resembles Israeli politics continued by other means. It would be interesting to ask the Adelsons which country, in their view, is the dog and which is the tail. 

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Politics 
🔊 Listen RSS
The newspapers are full of stories about how casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has given $5 million dollars to Newt Gingrich to run attack ads against Mitt Romney, revivifying Newt’s campaign. 
Is $5 million really headline news in politics these days? I feel very naive about this because I have no clue what the real deal is, but I’ve long noticed that when I’m reading stories about the political contributions of heavy hitters like Adelson and Haim Saban, the numbers tossed around about their donations don’t seem all that staggering. Now, T. Boone Pickens giving $165 million to get Oklahoma State almost into the BCS title game — that’s significant money. But $5 million sounds like what some used car dealer ponies up to get his college football team’s weight room refurbished, not the kind of serious moolah that may determine the course of American history. Reading these articles, I feel like I’m in that scene in Austin Powers where Dr. Evil is defrosted after 30 years and threatens to blow up the world if he’s not given “One. Million. Dollars!”
(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Politics 
🔊 Listen RSS
From my new VDARE column:

In his November 9th New York Times column cleverly entitled The Cain Scrutiny, Ross Douthat calls attention to the arresting spectacle of white conservatives rising up to defend the honor of Herman Cain and black manhood against allegations by blonde tramps that the Republican Presidential candidate’s sexual advances were unwanted: “We should remember this moment, because it’s a perfect encapsulation of how race’s role in American politics has changed over the last 75 years.” 

Indeed.

Read the whole thing there.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Politics 
No Items Found
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, VDARE.com columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.


PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation