• Dartlog
  • Features
  • Arts & Culture
  • Indian Sport
  • Editor's Corner
  • About Us
  • Archive
  • Subscribe & Donate

  • Dartlog
  • Features
  • Arts & Culture
  • Indian Sport
  • Editor's Corner
  • About Us
  • Archive
  • Subscribe & Donate

Top
  • Dartlog
  • Features
  • Arts & Culture
  • Indian Sport
  • Editor's Corner
  • About Us
  • Archive
  • Subscribe & Donate
Search
Follow Us!
Follow @DartmouthReview
Loading..
  • Arts & Culture RSS
  • Back Page RSS
  • Dartlog RSS
  • Features RSS
  • Indian Sport RSS
Donate!

Shop TDR!
  • TDR Essentials
    • TDR and Indian Gear
    • TDR Pleads Innocent
      Our history in hardback
Contact Us!
This form does not yet contain any fields.


    Links
    • Our Esteemed Peers
      • The Binghamton Review
      • The California Review
      • The Carolina Review
      • The Cornell Insider
      • The Daily D
      • The Dartmouth Free Press
      • The Irish Rover
      • The Michigan Review
      • The Midway Review
      • The Northwestern Chronicle
      • The Observer at BC
      • The Oregon Commentator
      • The Portland Spectator
      • The Princeton Tory
      • The Purdue Review
      • Stance: For the Family
      • The Stanford Review
      • The Vanderbilt Torch
    • Dartmouth Blogs
      • Big Green Alert
      • Dartbeat
      • Dartblog
      • The Dunyun
    • Conservative Blogs
      • The Corner
      • Drudge Report
      • The Foundry
      • Hot Air
      • Instapundit/Pajamas Media
      • Little Green Footballs
      • Michelle Malkin
      • NewsBusters
      • Powerline
      • The Volokh Conspiracy
    Pics
    • Pictures

    Entries in 2012 elections (5)

    Monday
    Aug132012

    Could Tapping Ryan Be a Sign of Confidence?

    Posted on DateAugust 13, 2012

    Almost immediately after Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, pundits from all across the political spectrum immediately weighed in on how Ryan would impact the race. Although conservatives hailed the selection as a pivot towards an issues-based election (where conservatism would naturally triumph) and leftists hailed it as a capitulation to the conservative wing of the GOP (which has justifiably viewed Romney as not one of them), implicit in both narratives was that Mitt Romney was selecting a vice president from a position of weakness and needed a “game change” to shake up a presidential race he was losing, a belief notably expounded by reliably leftist pundits like E.J. Dionne and Ezra Klein even before Ryan was officially picked. Unsurprisingly, this narrative is convenient for leftists who never miss an opportunity to pillory Romney for being, like reliably leftist Tomasky-types assert, “wimpy”, but also convenient for conservatives who think Obama would be trailing in the polls by double digits if conservatives had merely nominated one of their own.

     

    However, these narratives have one possible problem. From the standpoint of winning elections, Paul Ryan is an absolutely terrible vice presidential candidate. Although the Ryan plan is hardly the politically toxic bill that Democrats think they can use to defeat every Republican ever and usher in a leftist utopia, it still polls relatively poorly. And even if picking Ryan has an upside to the Romney campaign (as some polls even suggest the Ryan plan enjoys lukewarm support), other possible picks such as Portman, Pawlenty, Rubio, or Jindal would have done much more for Romney. In the (truncated) words of Harry Enten, a political analyst for The Guardian (and recent Dartmouth alum), “If...Romney..wanted a swing state...Portman...or...McDonnell. A bona-fide policy wonk...Jindal. Wasn't another boring white guy...Jindal...or Rubio. Blue-collar-cred...Pawlenty.” It's no surprise that Romney had to overrule almost his entire campaign team, including his pollster, in order to pick Ryan.

     

    But there are more motivations for picking a running mate than their ability to get their candidate elected President and there is more to politics than simply winning the closest election at hand (perhaps it is rather telling that so few leftists raise this). Policy and governance matter. After all, Lieberman was an electoral boon for Gore, but if it weren't for Florida's massive failure in basic ballot manufacture, he would have quickly turned into a serious liability as his hawkish foreign policy views would have seriously clashed with the rest of a post-9/11 Gore Administration. John Edwards, handsome, charismatic, and once popular, was a boon to the Kerry campaign, but I don't think I need to get into what horrors he would have unleashed onto a Kerry Administration. And although Joe Biden was picked to soothe expected racial anxieties (working-class man from Scranton!) and provide foreign policy gravitas (experience!), the former proved completely irrelevant when Obama won handily with the highest share of white voters of any Democrat since LBJ. And somewhat ironically, since Biden had long before proven himself a complete and embarrassing ignoramus on all affairs foreign (the highlight being his universally-mocked proposal to reenact Yugoslav 'funtimes' in Iraq), it became necessary for the Obama administration to quarantine Biden from any-and-all foreign policy decision-making. In all fairness, I credit and congratulate the Obama Administration for prudently doing so in a timely manner, although a small danger still looms, as illustrated by Osama bin Laden's plan to assassinate President Obama, a dastardly deed that the late terrorist reasoned would make Biden commander-in-chief, a near-fatal blow to American influence abroad.

     

    On the flip side, Dick Cheney was clearly not picked to help get George W. Bush elected. Calling Wyoming not a swing state is an understatement and I would be amazed to find someone who decided to vote for Bush because of Dick Cheney. But Bush had a strong lead in the polls when Cheney put himself forward for VP consideration and Bush opted for a running mate who he trusted, had personal chemistry with, and knew would help him govern. Although there were many reasons why Al Gore would eventually erase this polling deficit and sail into a relatively comfortable (popular vote) victory, perhaps the gap between the electoral contributions of their running mates was one of them. And although Clinton's selection of Al Gore is a less clear-cut case, having a center-left Southern Democrat pick someone with an almost identical profile was still probably not the most electorally helpful decision, but their similar profiles meant Gore would prove to be a boon to the Clinton Administration.

     

    If Ryan won't help Romney get elected, why was he picked? Unlike Clinton/Gore or Bush/Cheney, “severely conservative” Mitt Romney and actually conservative Paul Ryan are ideological worlds apart. But Ryan's record in Congress shows how he would be a huge boon to Romney when it actually comes time to govern. The first priority of a Romney administration will be to avoid the economic catastrophe that would result from, as many Democrats and some Republicans suggest doing, leaping off the fiscal cliff. Although Paul Ryan has impeccable fiscal conservative credentials, much as it took Nixon to go to China, Ryan has leveraged those credentials to avert economic disaster through legislation he found ideologically repugnant. In 2008, when several Republicans threatened to withhold support from the bipartisan Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (whose failure would have sent the economy spiraling in depression), it took Representative Ryan to coax them into supporting a bill that Republicans generally found idealogically repugnant, but knew was necessary. In 2011, when the economy once again faced economic disaster, the possibility that the debt ceiling would not be raised, Representative Ryan repeated the exact same behavior once again. And in 2013, when America will face the Sword of Damocles that hangs above our prostrate economy today, the fiscal cliff, it may very well take a Vice President Ryan to coax Congress into averting disaster.

     

    Thus, there are two possible calculations that Mitt Romney could have made before selecting Paul Ryan. The first implies that Romney really is in a position of weakness (or has at best even odds), but found ensuring that a Romney Administration wouldn't sail over the fiscal cliff in return for making it less likely for a Romney Administration to exist, was a worthwhile bargain. However, the widespread impression among investors that an Obama administration would be far more willing than a Romney administration to leap off the fiscal cliff means that we may want to consider another possibility. Perhaps Mitt Romney, having had a fabulously successful career in the finance sector, has great faith in his economic forecasting abilities and believes that the economy will further deteriorate to the point where he will probably win regardless of his running mate. Perhaps feeling that Obama had been rejected by the American economy itself and that the election had already been wrapped up, Romney opted to select a running mate based not on what he would bring to a Romney campaign, but based on what he would bring to a Romney Administration. In short, maybe the Ryan pick was not a sign of desperation or worry, but rather a sign of surprisingly self-assured confidence. Of course, I would take this possibility with a grain of salt, but maybe for a few Democrat operatives, it's worth rolling around at night worrying about.

    --Kirk Jing

    http://i.imgur.com/Q8Lej.jpg
    Comment2 Comments | Email ArticleEmail Article | Print ArticlePrint Article
    tagged Tag2012 elections, TagAl Gore, TagBarack Obama, TagBill Clinton, TagGeorge W. Bush, TagMitt Romney, TagPaul Ryan, TagPaul Ryan Budget, Tagbudget, Tageconomy, Tagfiscal cliff, Tagjohn kerry
    Tuesday
    Oct182011

    Obama Explains "Their" Plan

    Posted on DateOctober 18, 2011

    At a campaign event yesterday, October 17th in Asheville, North Carolina, President Barack Obama highlighted some of the differences between "his" and "their" plans on how to improve economic conditions in this country:



    "My plan says we’re going to put teachers back in the classrooms, construction workers back to work rebuilding America, rebuilding our schools, tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts for hiring veterans, tax cuts if you give your workers a raise –- that’s my plan. And then you got their plan which is let's have dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance. So far, at least, I feel better about my plan."

    Before I get to the obvious inaccuracy of the statement made about "their" plan, a few more important facets of "his" statement stand out to me. 

    1) How exactly does Obama plan to reconcile all these tax cuts with a progressive agenda that has demanded more and more government spending?

    2) Hasn't he already proposed a plan to create "shovel-ready" jobs for construction workers to rebuild America, before realizing he forgot the shovels? What makes this wave of his hand any different?

     

    Now, as far as "their" plan goes, is Obama's malicious oversimplification necessary? Does the President of the United States actually believe that the Republican party, actually wants "dirtier air, dirtier water, and less people with health insurance"? I certainly hope he is not drawing up bi-partisan policy with people who he believes actually want dirty air and water while those without health insurance suffer.

    This type of divisive rhetoric and blatant self-exaltation is exactly what many Republicans have been chastised for in the past. The conditions of our country do not improve as leaders sit and place blame from their campaign stump. The country and our economic woes will improve only when our elected leaders can move past the name-calling, past the juvenile blame-game, into a political world of honest, forthright policy discussion. Until that time, political leaders, along with their 24 hour news paparazzi will continue to be the theater of the absurd.

     

    --David Eads

    Comment1 Comment | Email ArticleEmail Article | Print ArticlePrint Article
    tagged Tag2012 elections, TagGOP 2012, TagNorth Carolina, TagObama Campaign, Tagair quality, Tagbi-partisan, Tageconomic growth, Taghealth insurance, Tagjob plan, Tagtax cuts, Tagwater quality
    Thursday
    Jul212011

    Gov. Buddy Roemer Announces Presidential Candidacy 

    Posted on DateJuly 21, 2011

    Today at 11:45 AM at the Hanover Inn, former Governor of Louisiana and Member of Congress, Buddy Roemer, kicked off his campaign for President. With the slogan, “free to lead,” Roemer outlined his main goals: ending unfair trade, reforming the tax code, supporting small businesses, and reducing spending. As a candidate, Roemer swears he will refuse any donations over $100 from a single donor. Furthermore, he criticized special interest groups and claimed he will never take their “blood money,” as he seeks to release their stranglehold on Washington.

    At 67-years-old, Roemer is one of the older candidates, but he assures that his age will only help him have a better understanding of what to do. For example, he claims that the biggest source of our debt problem, and the problem that nobody is paying attention to, is “unfair trade practices.” He somewhat failed to explain what he means by unfair trade though. He defended that he has been to China many times and that there he has seen unfair trade in the form of child labor, prison labor, and work without standards. Roemer continued to repeat, “ I am pro trade, but it has to be fair.” It will be interesting to see how he further defines his plan to make trade “fair” later on the campaign trail.

    --Elizabeth Reynolds

    Comment1 Comment | Email ArticleEmail Article | Print ArticlePrint Article
    tagged Tag2012 elections, TagDartmouth, TagGOP 2012, Tagbuddy roemer
    Wednesday
    Jul202011

    Cain Grasps at Straws

    Posted on DateJuly 20, 2011

    In an effort to draw support, GOP Presidential hopeful Herman Cain has continued his trend of anti-Islamic rhetoric with recent statements.

    Echoing earlier comments that he would feel uncomfortable appointing a Muslim to his Cabinet, Cain stated Sunday that Murfreesboro, Tennessee is “not discriminating based upon religion” by attempting to ban mosques in the community. He further stated his position that the city has “a right” to do so. Cain maintains that as both a religion and a code of conduct, Islam is different from “our other traditional religions.” Although he is an associate minister himself, Cain seems to paradoxically not consider Christianity a way of life beyond its religious practices.

    With this stance, Cain is doing a disservice to himself by ostracizing the intellectual right and putting on full display his ignorance not only of Islam and Sharia law, but also of the First Amendment and the religious freedom it protects.

    Cain has already drawn a slew of criticisms for his vacuous remarks, most notably from the Council on American-Islamic Relations spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, who denounced Cain’s comments as a “sign of desperation” and called on “reasonable people within the Republican Party to come out and strongly repudiate these kinds of un-American unconstitutional views.”

    --Adam I. W. Schwartzman

    CommentPost a Comment | Email ArticleEmail Article | Print ArticlePrint Article
    tagged Tag2012 elections, TagGOP, TagHerman Cain, TagIslam, TagMuslim, TagRepublican, Tagcandidate
    Page 1 2 Next 4 Entries ยป

    Copyright © 2011, The Dartmouth Review. All rights reserved. Nemo me impune lacessit. Privacy Policy