...to all you Francophiles out there. The French tend to bring out a lot of emotion among Americans, most of it negative for some reason. But whether you love or hate the French, it's worth noting as the battle for health care reform in this country heats up that the World Health Organization ranked the French health care system the best in the world. (The last ranking was in 2000.) Where was the U. S. system? 37th. Right behind Costa Rica and just ahead of Slovenia. Who else edged out the United States? Such world powers as Colombia, Morocco, and Chile.
I've never been a big fan of rankings, but since the U. S. spends far more on health care than any other country, wouldn't you expect to see our outcomes ranked in the top five or so? How about the top 10? Surely the top 35?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor's nomination...
...to the U. S. Supreme Court is a lock. The only question now is the over/under. Could we please move on and talk about something else?
Monday, July 13, 2009
In a sign of the times...
...Mark Kirk may decide not to run for the Republican nomination for Obama's old senate seat currently held by Roland Burris. He would make an extraordinarily formidable candidate and could beat either of the Democrats expected to run, state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias or Chris Kennedy (yes, of that Kennedy family). His voting record has been reliably Republican in the House except for the most recent energy bill. As a result, the state party delegation has threatened to back state party chairman Andy McKenna instead. McKenna seems like a nice man but he's one of these guys who has been running for anything and everything for as long as I can remember and can't seem to get elected dog-catcher. I was worried about Kirk; I thought he'd win. But because of one vote, the state party has deemed him insufficiently pure and is instead ready to back a sure loser. Once again, the Republicans are poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The All-Star game is tomorrow...
...and one of my many rules of thumb is as follows: If your team is at or above .500 at the All-Star break, then they can still make the playoffs. So don't lose heart all you Cubs, White Sox, and Twins fans; your team is still in the race.
By the way, a good sports trivia question is: What are the only two days of the year when no games are scheduled by the NFL, NBA, NHL, or Major League Baseball? Answer: the Monday and Wednesday straddling the All-Star game.
By the way, a good sports trivia question is: What are the only two days of the year when no games are scheduled by the NFL, NBA, NHL, or Major League Baseball? Answer: the Monday and Wednesday straddling the All-Star game.
There's a good article on the front page...
...of the New York Times today that sheds more light on the Sarah Palin resignation story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/us/politics/13palin.html?_r=1&hp
It's still not clear to me whether or not Palin is running in 2012, but I think the prospect terrifies the Republican establishment to the extent that they might mount an Anybody But Palin movement much like the Democrats tried unsuccessfully to nominate Anybody But Carter in 1976. A Romney-Huckabee ticket could be the answer.
Republicans like to nominate whoever is next in line and it could be argued that it's now Mitt Romney's turn. He certainly looks the part, has an outstanding resume, and is presumably an expert on the economy. He's also demonstrated the ability to raise lots of money and has distinguished himself lately as one of the last grownups in the party. Huckabee could help shore up the religious right and therefore box out Palin. He reportedly despised Romney (as did McCain) in the 2008 primaries but that's never been known to stand in the way of raw ambition before. (Just ask LBJ.)
On the other hand, Romney is a horrible campaigner and performed poorly last time around despite a ton of money and a weak field. He may have learned a thing or two; we'll see. It's hard to get excited about Romney (unless you're a Mormon) and he's been a shameless panderer and flip-flopper in the past. I don't think that works as well nowadays; the electorate is more sophisticated than it used to be. I still think Newt Gingrich or more likely, None of the Above, are better bets for the nomination.
But Palin still has a lot of support among rank-and-file Republicans. Her numbers with them are impressive, even after this latest debacle. It's a long shot, but Palin could still conceivably blitzkrieg her way to the nomination in 2012, despite an ABP movement.
I had assumed that 2012 would essentially be a replay of 1984, with Obama playing the role of Reagan and some garden-variety Republican like Romney playing the sacrificial lamb role of Mondale. Just as Reagan's tax cuts jump-started the economy in time for the next election, so should the Fed's zero interest rates and Obama's stimulus kick in by 2012. The election should be a landslide victory for the incumbent. If Palin were to get the nomination, however, I would expect a landslide also, but more along the lines of a Goldwater or a McGovern. That is to say, a complete repudiation of the standard bearer's political philosophy. It could be a bloodbath of legendary proportions; Palin would have trouble carrying even her home state of Alaska.
But this could ultimately be good for the Republicans. Because if you look at it through the eyes of someone who's been in the markets his whole life, maybe what the Republican Party needs is a capitulation like this to form a bottom. Only then will they get serious about rebuilding their brand.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/us/politics/13palin.html?_r=1&hp
It's still not clear to me whether or not Palin is running in 2012, but I think the prospect terrifies the Republican establishment to the extent that they might mount an Anybody But Palin movement much like the Democrats tried unsuccessfully to nominate Anybody But Carter in 1976. A Romney-Huckabee ticket could be the answer.
Republicans like to nominate whoever is next in line and it could be argued that it's now Mitt Romney's turn. He certainly looks the part, has an outstanding resume, and is presumably an expert on the economy. He's also demonstrated the ability to raise lots of money and has distinguished himself lately as one of the last grownups in the party. Huckabee could help shore up the religious right and therefore box out Palin. He reportedly despised Romney (as did McCain) in the 2008 primaries but that's never been known to stand in the way of raw ambition before. (Just ask LBJ.)
On the other hand, Romney is a horrible campaigner and performed poorly last time around despite a ton of money and a weak field. He may have learned a thing or two; we'll see. It's hard to get excited about Romney (unless you're a Mormon) and he's been a shameless panderer and flip-flopper in the past. I don't think that works as well nowadays; the electorate is more sophisticated than it used to be. I still think Newt Gingrich or more likely, None of the Above, are better bets for the nomination.
But Palin still has a lot of support among rank-and-file Republicans. Her numbers with them are impressive, even after this latest debacle. It's a long shot, but Palin could still conceivably blitzkrieg her way to the nomination in 2012, despite an ABP movement.
I had assumed that 2012 would essentially be a replay of 1984, with Obama playing the role of Reagan and some garden-variety Republican like Romney playing the sacrificial lamb role of Mondale. Just as Reagan's tax cuts jump-started the economy in time for the next election, so should the Fed's zero interest rates and Obama's stimulus kick in by 2012. The election should be a landslide victory for the incumbent. If Palin were to get the nomination, however, I would expect a landslide also, but more along the lines of a Goldwater or a McGovern. That is to say, a complete repudiation of the standard bearer's political philosophy. It could be a bloodbath of legendary proportions; Palin would have trouble carrying even her home state of Alaska.
But this could ultimately be good for the Republicans. Because if you look at it through the eyes of someone who's been in the markets his whole life, maybe what the Republican Party needs is a capitulation like this to form a bottom. Only then will they get serious about rebuilding their brand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)