GOP Primary Megathread!

[Admiral Yi]

So everyone who negotiates their own salary, and seeks better than marker compensation, is extracting rents.

No.  Everyone who seeks rents is seeking rents.  Everyone who extracts rents extracts rents.  Not everyone who seeks rents succeeds.

[Razgovory]

You beef is that they are successful?

[Neil]

unions ultimately serve a purpose.

So do the Mafia and al Qaeda.  The question is whether that purpose is consonant with the greater public good.

The greater public good is a balance, and bringing back the robber barons isn't it either.

[Sheilbh]

That sentiment may be, in fact, one of the fundamental problems with our style of representative government - we choose our leaders based on this "emotional, personal, gut connection" but the real business of governing has almost an inverse relationship with those things. It is a very technical, arcane endeavor, fraught with almost gnostic movement through various spheres of influence, legal boundaries, reams and reams of data, and very much geared *theoretically* toward compromise and consensus. It is possible that the more we elect leaders based on our "gut feelings", the more those leaders actually have come to believe that the reason they are in Washington is to be a conduit for our emotions, instead of...well...governors.

Emotional politics like the ones currently guiding our electorate may make for a good circus, but does it make for good government?

I'm about to go out so I'll come back to this later.

But it reminds me of Francis Fukuyama's recent argument that the problem with American governance (and it's a specifically American problem) is that you developed democracy before bureaucracy.  I'm far from sold but it's interesting and I think there's an element of truth to it:

Conversely, I would argue that the quality of governance in the US tends to be low precisely because of a continuing tradition of Jacksonian populism. Americans with their democratic roots generally do not trust elite bureaucrats to the extent that the French, Germans, British, or Japanese have in years past. This distrust leads to micromanagement by Congress through proliferating rules and complex, self-contradictory legislative mandates which make poor quality governance a self-fulfilling prophecy. The US is thus caught in a low-level equilibrium trap, in which a hobbled bureaucracy validates everyone's view that the government can't do anything competently. The origins of this, as Martin Shefter pointed out many years ago, is due to the fact that democracy preceded bureaucratic consolidation in contrast to European democracies that arose out of aristocratic regimes.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/fukuyama/2012/01/31/what-is-governance/

[LaCroix]

I don't see why outright banning them is obviously not the answer.

languish is so fickle. when i add disclaimers, people say why, when i don't, people try and argue that i'm misrepresenting their views 

[CountDeMoney]

That sentiment may be, in fact, one of the fundamental problems with our style of representative government - we choose our leaders based on this "emotional, personal, gut connection" but the real business of governing has almost an inverse relationship with those things. It is a very technical, arcane endeavor, fraught with almost gnostic movement through various spheres of influence, legal boundaries, reams and reams of data, and very much geared *theoretically* toward compromise and consensus. It is possible that the more we elect leaders based on our "gut feelings", the more those leaders actually have come to believe that the reason they are in Washington is to be a conduit for our emotions, instead of...well...governors.

What's this "we" shit.  I voted for Al Gore.

[Neil]

That sentiment may be, in fact, one of the fundamental problems with our style of representative government - we choose our leaders based on this "emotional, personal, gut connection" but the real business of governing has almost an inverse relationship with those things. It is a very technical, arcane endeavor, fraught with almost gnostic movement through various spheres of influence, legal boundaries, reams and reams of data, and very much geared *theoretically* toward compromise and consensus. It is possible that the more we elect leaders based on our "gut feelings", the more those leaders actually have come to believe that the reason they are in Washington is to be a conduit for our emotions, instead of...well...governors.

What's this "we" shit.  I voted for Al Gore.

Yeah, but not for any rational reason or because he seemed especially clever.

[fhdz]

But it reminds me of Francis Fukuyama's recent argument that the problem with American governance (and it's a specifically American problem) is that you developed democracy before bureaucracy.  I'm far from sold but it's interesting and I think there's an element of truth to it:

Conversely, I would argue that the quality of governance in the US tends to be low precisely because of a continuing tradition of Jacksonian populism. Americans with their democratic roots generally do not trust elite bureaucrats to the extent that the French, Germans, British, or Japanese have in years past. This distrust leads to micromanagement by Congress through proliferating rules and complex, self-contradictory legislative mandates which make poor quality governance a self-fulfilling prophecy. The US is thus caught in a low-level equilibrium trap, in which a hobbled bureaucracy validates everyone's view that the government can't do anything competently. The origins of this, as Martin Shefter pointed out many years ago, is due to the fact that democracy preceded bureaucratic consolidation in contrast to European democracies that arose out of aristocratic regimes.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/fukuyama/2012/01/31/what-is-governance/

That's really interesting, Sheilbh, thank you for posting it. I'll read the full article.

[CountDeMoney]

That sentiment may be, in fact, one of the fundamental problems with our style of representative government - we choose our leaders based on this "emotional, personal, gut connection" but the real business of governing has almost an inverse relationship with those things. It is a very technical, arcane endeavor, fraught with almost gnostic movement through various spheres of influence, legal boundaries, reams and reams of data, and very much geared *theoretically* toward compromise and consensus. It is possible that the more we elect leaders based on our "gut feelings", the more those leaders actually have come to believe that the reason they are in Washington is to be a conduit for our emotions, instead of...well...governors.

What's this "we" shit.  I voted for Al Gore.

Yeah, but not for any rational reason or because he seemed especially clever.

Bullshit.  Al Gore has always been the ultimate policy wonk, doing the job himself and driving his staff with the same sense of purpose with which he holds himself.
He would've been the perfect policy president.

[Neil]

That sentiment may be, in fact, one of the fundamental problems with our style of representative government - we choose our leaders based on this "emotional, personal, gut connection" but the real business of governing has almost an inverse relationship with those things. It is a very technical, arcane endeavor, fraught with almost gnostic movement through various spheres of influence, legal boundaries, reams and reams of data, and very much geared *theoretically* toward compromise and consensus. It is possible that the more we elect leaders based on our "gut feelings", the more those leaders actually have come to believe that the reason they are in Washington is to be a conduit for our emotions, instead of...well...governors.

What's this "we" shit.  I voted for Al Gore.

Yeah, but not for any rational reason or because he seemed especially clever.

Bullshit.  Al Gore has always been the ultimate policy wonk, doing the job himself and driving his staff with the same sense of purpose with which he holds himself.
He would've been the perfect policy president.

Probably, although his policies would have had a rough time in Congress.

None of that changes the fact that you voted for him for tribal reasons.

[Caliga]

I voted for George W. Bush in 2000.  Uniter, not a divider.

[CountDeMoney]

That sentiment may be, in fact, one of the fundamental problems with our style of representative government - we choose our leaders based on this "emotional, personal, gut connection" but the real business of governing has almost an inverse relationship with those things. It is a very technical, arcane endeavor, fraught with almost gnostic movement through various spheres of influence, legal boundaries, reams and reams of data, and very much geared *theoretically* toward compromise and consensus. It is possible that the more we elect leaders based on our "gut feelings", the more those leaders actually have come to believe that the reason they are in Washington is to be a conduit for our emotions, instead of...well...governors.

What's this "we" shit.  I voted for Al Gore.

Yeah, but not for any rational reason or because he seemed especially clever.

Bullshit.  Al Gore has always been the ultimate policy wonk, doing the job himself and driving his staff with the same sense of purpose with which he holds himself.
He would've been the perfect policy president.

Probably, although his policies would have had a rough time in Congress.

None of that changes the fact that you voted for him for tribal reasons.

GOP's fault they nominated the wrong guy.

[CountDeMoney]

He's making it an easier slam dunk for Obama than if Palin was running.

Santorum says Obama agenda not 'based on Bible'

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum challenged President Barack Obama's Christian beliefs on Saturday, saying White House policies were motivated by a "different theology."

A devout Roman Catholic who has risen to the top of Republican polls in recent days, Santorum said the Obama administration had failed to prevent gas prices rising and was using "political science" in the debate about climate change.

Obama's agenda is "not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology," Santorum told supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement at a Columbus hotel.

When asked about the statement at a news conference later, Santorum said, "If the president says he's a Christian, he's a Christian."

But Santorum did not back down from the assertion that Obama's values run against those of Christianity.

"He is imposing his values on the Christian church. He can categorize those values anyway he wants. I'm not going to," Santorum told reporters.

A social conservative, Santorum is increasingly seen as a champion for evangelical Christians in fights with Democrats over contraception and gay marriage.

"This is just the latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness, and searing pessimism and negativity - a stark contrast with the President who is focused everyday on creating jobs and restoring economic security for the middle class," said Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.

The campaign's response signaled a new respect for Santorum. Until this week, the Obama campaign appeared exclusively focused on Mitt Romney. Republicans are waging a state-by-state contest to pick a candidate to challenge Obama in November's election.

At a campaign appearance in Florida last month, Santorum declined to correct a voter who called Obama, a Christian, an "avowed Muslim."

Santorum told CNN after that incident, "I don't feel it's my obligation every time someone says something I don't agree with to contradict them, and the president's a big boy, he can defend himself."

QUESTIONS ROMNEY RECORD ON OLYMPICS

On Saturday, Santorum also took aim at Romney, his main Republican rival, on one of the central accomplishments of his resume, saying the former Massachusetts governor's rescue of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics required millions of dollars in handouts from the federal government.

The attack was a response to the Romney camp trying to portray Santorum as a proponent of big government because of his use of earmarks while he served in the U.S. Senate.

"He heroically bailed out the Salt Lake City Olympic Games by heroically going to Congress and asking them for tens of millions of dollars to bail out the Salt Lake Olympic Games - in an earmark," Santorum said.

"One of his strongest supporters, John McCain called it potentially the worst boondoggle in earmark history. And now Governor Romney is suggesting, 'Oh, Rick Santorum earmarked,' as he requested almost half a billion dollars of earmarks as governor of Massachusetts to his federal congressmen and senators. Does the word hypocrisy come to mind?" Santorum said.

Romney often talks of how he turned around the struggling Olympics organization and is appearing in Utah on Saturday to mark the anniversary of the Olympics.

In a statement, the Romney campaign said Santorum was in a weak position to challenge its candidate on big spending.

"Sometimes when you shoot from the hip, you end up shooting yourself in the foot. There is a pretty wide gulf between seeking money for post-9/11 security at the Olympics and seeking earmarks for polar bear exhibits at the Pittsburgh Zoo. Mitt Romney wants to ban earmarks, Senator Santorum wants more 'Bridges to Nowhere,'" said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul.

[Neil]

GOP's fault they nominated the wrong guy.

You probably voted for Clinton over Dole.

[garbon]

I liked Romney's gay campaigner in Arizona. Underwear shot okay. Threatening to deport an ex, a-ok