An offhand evaluation of Republican Presidential candidates and their law and orderliness

Jeb – seems conventionally law and orderly, but not strident.  Mushy, ambiguous

Marco – Stands to reason he’s going to be conventionally law and orderly

Huckabee – law and orderly, but is in embrace of forgiveness in good ways that some Evangelicals are

Rand – No, he’s an almost complete contrarian this way and an Ayn Randian

Ted – Much as he is a tea partier, he’s an anti-institutional insurrectionist.  Hard to discern where he goes if there’s a President Ted, but I think it’s to police and incarceration / cj reform.

Walker – seems conventionally law and orderly, if not more so.  Which is disappointing.

Jots with dots 4/24

I made this point:

I made this point:

Gridlock:  I made this point, it’s not obvious there’s any ‘there’ there with Amy.  She’s a lightweight for the most part engaged in trivialities.  But she’ll never lose due to this appeal of a Mn. Nice persona that is reinforced and abetted by the local press.  Thing is, by comparison, a guy like me, do I like Al Franken?  Not especially, but I’m able to tick off some consequential things he targets that he impacts.  CFPB, Wall Street, net neutrality, torpedoing the Comcast merger.  On big ideas, he has his nose to the grind stone.  And saying, we’re not well represented with Sen. Amy, she was completely supine over the medical device tax.  Newscut comment by some person on the internet:  The Democrats were a bit miffed Sen. Amy wasn’t mentally prepared / predisposed to gridlock the place up with a Hyde amendment fight.

So, does Chait still think she’s going to win then?  This has a chance to be disqualifying.

Word police: “subsidy”  I have read the bill.  Its over my head, I’m not an accountant.  But I think I’m right to understand that they’re calling industry specific tax depletion allowances, IE, accounting methodologies ‘subsidies’.  And that’s not really a ‘subsidy’.  Usual trick there, but hey, I’m a literalist.

Armenia:  I was reading Black’s article deeply this time. I might be able to get into an Armenia week like I did an Israel week.   One thing, I think in my mind’s eye I thought Armenia was by Bulgaria and Greece.  That’s wrong, other direction:,39.7398377,6z  So, what to make of candidate Obama pledging to recognize the Armenian genocide during the 2008 campaign and then not doing it as President?  Well as now, recognition of Armenian genocide was a political and academic movement that could be pandered to, and to be more charitable ‘recognition of Armenian genocide’ was a position that probably aligned somewhat naturally to Obama’s instincts as both an academic and political activist, which is what he was by vocation at the time.  Other thing is, he was obviously a magnificent / undisciplined BS artist on things he knew little about.  I don’t recall that McCain was against ‘recognition of genocide’, but it seems kind of neo-conny / realpolitik to want to appease the Turks.  So figure candidate Obama took the moral high ground to differentiate himself from McCain in self-flattering ways with contemplated principle over messy pragmatism.  Which was insincere, a discardable pander.  Shocking, but its ok if Democrats do that, even when they promise to ascend from the politics of cynicism…. cuz Koch brothers.  Ya know, I keep saying that… but it’s a (perhaps obtuse) function of continuing to note the double standard, or, to observe that it aint so that the Democrats can claim the the moral high ground without actually occupying it in a meaningful way.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s