Skip to content

Archive for October 13th, 2008

Oct 13

Kudos to Krugman

Congratulations to Princeton Professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for winning the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Daniel and I had a chance to hear Professor Krugman (center) at an event at the Big Tent in Denver (pictured above), which also featured John Podesta (right) and David Sirota (left). We coincidentally ran into Mr. Podesta a couple of days later on the street.

Krugman, a supporter of Senator Obama, won the Nobel for his research on the dynamics of global trade.

Mr. Krugman won the prize for his research, beginning in 1979, that explained patterns of trade among countries, as well as what goods are produced where and why.

Traditional trade theory assumes that countries are different and will exchange only the kinds of goods that they are comparatively better at producing — wine from France, for example, and rice from China.

This model, however, dating from David Ricardo’s writings of the early 19th century, was not reflected in the flow of goods and services that Mr. Krugman saw in the world around him. He set out to explain why worldwide trade was dominated by a few countries that were similar to one another, and why a country might import the same kinds of goods it exported.

In his model, many companies sell similar goods with slight variations. These companies become more efficient at producing their goods as they sell more, and so they grow. Consumers like variety, and pick and choose goods from among these producers in different countries, enabling countries to continue exchanging similar products. So some Americans buy Volkswagens and some Germans buy Fords.

He developed this work further to explain the effect of transportation costs on why people live where they live. His model explained under what conditions trade would lead people or companies to move to a particular region or to move away.

Oct 13

The Scaliziest Political Commercial in Louisiana

H/t to Ryan at the Daily Kingfish.

Newly-elected Congressman Steve Scalise is obviously worried, which may explain why he’s running one of the most dishonorable political commercials I have ever seen.

Scalise claims Harlan has spent $1 million “attacking” him with “desperate lies,” yet he offers not a single example or rebuttal of those “lies.” Instead, he quickly pivots away from Harlan and onto Barack Obama and, believe it or not, Jeremiah Wright, a man even John McCain has called “off-limits.”

The ad almost looks like a parody: “Harlan’s desperate lies won’t cover up the fact that he’s a Barack Obama delegate,” says the narrator.

Perhaps it’s true Harlan was an Obama delegate, but I- along with Daniel, Ryan, and nearly 100 other Louisianans- was in Denver a couple of months ago for the Democratic National Convention.

And I don’t recall Mr. Harlan being there and casting his vote for Senator Obama. Perhaps he swooped in for the roll call. Maybe we all missed him. Doubtful, though.

Regardless, this ad is sleazy and shameless. It’s the lowest type of attack ad– an ad that doesn’t even attack the opponent on substance but relies on guilt by association to paint a good and decent American as being subversive, based solely on a soundbite of someone else’s former pastor.

“Harlan embraces Obama’s liberal and dangerous agenda, shaped by radicals like Jeremiah Wright,” the narrator says. The buzzwords (“dangerous” and “radical”) juxtaposed against the fleeting clip of Jeremiah Wright may make for powerful imagery, but they also speak to Mr. Scalise’s willingness to play a game of ignorant cultural divisiveness, a game that refuses intellectual nuance and prefers hyperbole over understanding, as a strategy for victory.

But that isn’t the only problem: Mr. Scalise reveals himself to be amateurish. He would like to represent Louisiana in the United States Congress, but this ad (and the message it carries) is an insult to integrity of the office to which he seeks. It seeks to play on the fears of the fringes in order to discredit a highly-qualified and highly-respected man who also simply seeks to represent his district and the Great State of Louisiana.

It appears as if Scalise’s only defense against his opponent is attempting to inject a supercilious national smear into a local election that is ultimately about the people of Louisiana.

In short, this is a commercial borne out of arrogance, a type of arrogance that refuses to acknowledge substance and subtlety and instead hopes to scare voters by questioning his opponent’s, another American, commitment to his nation.

This is actually guilt by association squared, and it is absolutely shameful, particularly coming, as it does, from a sitting United States Congressman.

Oct 13

1 Comment

Landrieu Versus Kennedy: Round II: “Senator McCain’s Coattails Are Not Long Enough for You.”

Senator Mary Landrieu and State Treasurer John Kennedy met for the second of four debates tonight in Baton Rouge, an event that was televised statewide by Louisiana Public Broadcasting and sponsored by the Council for a Better Louisiana (CABL).

I have to admit: I found Treasurer Kennedy to be a skilled debater, not necessarily in substance but in style. He displayed his ability to sound like a folksy government watchdog, which, of course, belies his high-fallutin’ education at Vanderbilt, UVA, and Oxford as well as his years in the high levels of state government, both as a Democrat and a Republican.

Which is why Mr. Kennedy’s angle seemed particularly disingenuous and bizarre. He began and ended the debate by reminding Louisianans that he is the “only candidate” in the race who is supporting Senator McCain and not Senator Obama, and he seemed, throughout the night, more focused on the dynamics of the national political landscape (which, ironically, currently favor Mr. Obama; it’d seem like a better strategy if Mr. McCain was the out-and-out front-runner) than on the issues that face the Great State of Louisiana.

In other words, it appears as if Kennedy is amping up his upticket alliances, which is, again, bizarre, because Mr. Kennedy only recently switched to the Republican Party and had opposed Mr. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Now, suddenly, he is a conservative Republican who seeks to exploit his newly-developed alliances in order to gain an election victory. Only two years after he was elected as a Democrat, he now embraces “conservative change.”

When addressing the trillion dollar market collapse and the government response, Kennedy suggested, with some degree of specificity, that the government would have been better off creating a “quasi-governmental” corporation with a nest egg of only $50 or so million to begin buying off “mortgage-backed securities from the banks.” With all due respect to our Treasurer, his plan, which sounds to be equally as “socialistic” as anyone else’s, appears to woefully misunderstand and underestimate the severity and the extent of this current financial crisis. And after suggesting a taxpayer investment of at least $50 million, Kennedy then says his plan would not call for any taxpayer dollars, a curious claim that was directly contradicted by his previous statement. How can anything be “quasi-governmental” and not involve the expenditure of taxpayer dollars? Now is not the time to be cute or to suggest that you alone know the panacea. I know I am not the only one who believes it is foolish and sophomoric to suggest that a $50 million project could solve a $1 trillion problem.

Landrieu, on the other hand, argues for taxpayer protection by suggesting government shares in the banks in which we all invest, which can ensure that we all receive a return on our investment, and by guaranteeing loans between banks, solid ideas that have bipartisan support.

Kennedy, in an attempt to attack Landrieu on FEMA, of all things, made the brazenly audacious claim that she alone was responsible for FEMA. With all due respect to Treasurer Kennedy, if he believes that the head of a Senate Subcommittee for Disaster Relief controls FEMA (a position we should be thankful to have represented by someone from our Great State), he should be immediately considered disqualified for the office. Such an expression fundamentally misunderstands the checks and balances of government and the nature of FEMA. He attempted to suggest that Landrieu “controls FEMA,” which is simply and patently absurd. President Bush controls FEMA. Period.

Landrieu took responsibility for her vote to authorize force in Iraq, recognizing that it was a mistake and expressing her belief that the money spent in Iraq could have been better spent here in the United States and on fighting the war on bin Laden and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, while Mr. Kennedy preferred speaking about the “success” of the surge, when, in fact, he had supported timetables only three years ago.

Mr. Kennedy also rehearsed a litany of examples on the evils of earmarks, lambasting federal appropriations for scientific research and music education for children. Yet, when questioned on how he would address appropriations for university research here in Louisiana, Kennedy seemed to struggle, arguing, for the first time that I have heard in this election, that there were good “earmarks,” and, ironically, echoing Senator Landrieu’s call for transparency in the process. In doing so, Treasurer Kennedy undermined his entire argument against the “evils” of earmarks, while, at the same time, obviously and blatantly misrepresenting Landrieu’s beliefs on the subject.

Kennedy couldn’t offer an adequate answer about how to attract young people to government work, offering only a bland explanation about his infrequent joys of serving the public; whereas Senator Landrieu referenced specific examples of programs that work and the importance of groups like Teach for America.

Unfortunately, throughout the debate, Treasurer Kennedy consistently and overtly lied and misrepresented Senator Landrieu’s record as well as the implications of her policy positions, at several points falsely suggesting that her health care plans would strip Louisianans of their Medicaid coverage and would leave millions without insurance. This is not accurate, and it fundamentally misrepresents the bipartisan plan that Senator Landrieu and her “Gang of Fourteen” are promoting. Instead of debating specifics, Mr. Kennedy filled in his criticism with the standard tropes of “socialized healthcare.” He flat-out lied about the contents and the intentions of her proposals, and as the Senator noted, “he’s very confused about a lot of things in this race.” Kennedy also promoted the supremacy of the private sector in responding to health care problems, which the Senator strongly disputed and, in light of the recent market disaster, resonates.

Landrieu was strong, articulate, and effective in this debate, and by the end, she had pierced through Kennedy’s central claim to this election: An incredibly weak attempt to link himself to John McCain.

At the conclusion of the debate, after Landrieu had successfully confronted Kennedy for his opposition to a farmer’s relief bill for the farmers of Louisiana (which will prove to be permanently embarassing to Mr. Kennedy), he attempted to turn the conversation back to the national election, repeatedly asking Landrieu why she supported Mr. Obama.

Which led to the quote of this election:

“John, I know you’re trying very hard, but Senator McCain’s coattails are not long enough for you.”

- Mary Landrieu