Osler's Razor

Christie and McAuliffe are both nice guys who finished first.

The Mayor said he smoked it once while drunk. No info about how that all came about. No info about other incidents.

People do dumb things when drunk. The question is what other episodes are out there if any.

I consumed hashish at a party once, in brownies, unaware of the contamination; got some from the wrong dish, it turned out, but unaware any had been doctored. Similar exposure one other time to the less potent form of marijuana. No other exposure and no desire either. For same reason I do not get drunk -- don't like losing or dulling my senses.
 

1) Top Story of the Week, Month, and Year: the bungled rollout and implementation of ACA including the President's credibility crisis (http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/lying-about-lies-why-credibility-matters-to-obama-20131105), incompetence (http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/will-insularity-incompetence-and-lies-doom-obamacare-20131104), and the "crisis of confidence" (http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/will-insularity-incompetence-and-lies-doom-obamacare-20131104).

2) Jonathan Martin and Richie Incognito and the NFL and the subculture of manliness on steroids.

3) Election of de Blasio in NYC. After two decades of incredibly successful moderate-GOP leadership, the good folks of NYC have chosen a new direction. For all of us who sincerely love the Big Apple, the next decade will be telling.
 

In re the crack-smoking mayor, I could never get interested in the Barry saga (in a city that coexists alongside the nation's capital). The mayor of some big city in Canada is unlikely to ever make it onto my radar in any way whatsoever--other than a continuing allusion on the Razor.
 

Hey, I can't ignore a crack story. It's kind of what I do.

Last week I was recalling the infamous Lariat headline "Osler Speaks On Crack."

Wf, you are right about the drunk part, and that is important to note, in that it underscores the stupidity of public drunkenness. Or private drunkenness, for that matter.
 

I hear you, Mark. My dismissive tone was not so much regarding crack (as it pertains to your professional interest) as it was the multi-layered tragedy that is big-city-governance in general.

As for me, to the extent I care and/or see this as my concern(which is quite limited), I hope this elected official, role model by choice, Mr. Mayor is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (whatever that is) and faces the fullest public disapprobation and practical consequences in keeping with his actions.
 

WF-- As I said in the post, I think the Obamacare rollout was the biggest mistake of this presidency. However, I think it will probably get fixed and not be much of a long-term issue. Like Medicare Part D, it gives people benefits they mostly want, and so they will end up liking it.

As we have agreed before, there is little attention paid by voters to long-term debt, even though there should be a demand for action. Neither party wants to do the unpopular things (i.e., cut social spending AND the military a lot more) necessary to start fixing that problem.
 

Hi Mark,

I think you are fundamentally misreading what is actually coming out in re ACA. In some ways the focus on the inexcusably atrocious website has been a great advantage for the WH and sympathetic forces desperately clinging to hope as we have mostly concentrated attention on a very minor element that the will inevitably get better.

The real question (and real fear) is whether this disastrous start and outer candy shell is indicative of the entire program. And I am not sure that there is any evidence that the entire enterprise is not just as laden with disastrous political decisions, incompetence, and arrogance--which is just not a recipe for success on a project on this scale.
 

And, of course, as you say, we continue to agree that our long-term problems are legion and gargantuan and neither party shows any inclination to address them in a serious way. So, in that sense, none of the elections on Tuesday were very important.
 

I am always surprised, and I don't know why, about the double-edged sword that sound-bites represent. When forced to speak to the lowest common news-watching common denominator, a basic message of "I will not by my hand take away your insurance policy, oh thou who fearest that I will start stealing your stuff" cannot possibly contain the additional nuanced message of "but any change to regulation on the insurance industry will cause them to readjust things, and if you have a policy that is no longer financially advantageous to them, they will, inevitably, phase it out to something that lets them continue to make as exorbitant a profit as possible." One of the things that I think makes Obama an excellent President is his ability to hold complex, nuanced thought in his head -- something I haven't been so sure about in some of his predecessors. But it also is what gets him slammed for being "an outsider," "an academic," or "dishonest" -- because he lacks skill at dumbing concepts down in a way that keeps him from being seen as deceitful. I'd rather have this problem than the deceit of "Mission Accomplished" in the previous administration, personally.
 

As to the Old Dominion, the Republican, Ken Cuccinelli (a fellow IP Attorney, by the way) was outspent by $15 million, did not get the financial or shoe leather suport of "establishment" Republicans and ran on what he referred to as "First Principles," as opposed to pocketbook issues.

Even so, former DNC Chair and one of Bill Clinton's most ethically challenged best buddies, Terry McAuliffe barely won.

The demographic breakdown was what you'd expect-- Democrats won big in urban and suburban areas, Republicans win big in rural areas. Political campaigns used to be won and lost in "suburbia," the close in communities around cities. But no more. Its "exurbia" where the battles take place; the communities 30 miles out or more where middle income people can still buy homes (and subject themselves to crushing commutes, or work in edge cities, like Virginia's own Tyson's Corner).

Cuccinelli is a Tea Party favorite. Or simply a social conservative. Either way, he's a red meat kind of guy. But unlike the stereotype of the southern Republican, he's not a southern baptist Confederate sympathizing quasi-racist: He grew up in suburban McLean, Virginia in a solidly middle class family. He went to Catholic high school in D.C. and to U.Va for college. He's not a sheltered rich kid or a the great great grandson of some slave holding plantation owning family (lots of each of these in Virginia). He's a fully committed Pro Life politician, but not from the Falwell or Robertson camps (both played major roles in Virginia politics in the past).

I've known him for 20 years. We're not close friends, but I can say he's a pretty normal guy that I would have no problem having a beer with. He has a sense of humor and is not off in some alternate universe. He listens and does not browbeat or BS.

However, he's got very firm opinions and unshakable beliefs. A plus, as no one likes a wishy washy politician, but there's a difference between a strong, living oak with many branches that sway without being toppled and a steel post that never grows and that once knocked over cannot regenerate.

As Attorney General, he was aggressive on conservative positions, going after the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), challenging U.Va. to give up files from a professor studying global warming and so on. He ran a tough, no gloves internal campaign to get the GOP nomination, shoving aside the Republican Lt. Governor. He was dogged, determined and inflexible. His campaign was one of philosophical differences and although he's personally likeable and a much better debater and public speaker, he had nothing to offer underemployed Virginians or the huge number of frustrated federal workers that live in Virginia.

Near the end of the campaign, he started to gain some traction -- as an early and vocal opponent of Obamacare, he looked a bit prophetic as the ACA's rollout turned into a disaster. If Congress had not forced a shutdown and pissed off so many Virginia voters who work for the Federal Government or if the election had been NEXT week and the displeasure with Obama and Healthcare.gov had continued to grow, Cuccinelli might have won.

 

PART DEUX:



The conservative commentators and bloggers have bemoaned the fact that the press did not cover McAuliffe's questionable (and trust me they're questionable) business ethics and they have complained that a lot of past GOP leaders were not enthusiastically behind Cuccinelli.

HOWEVER, Cuccinelli and his team KNEW this was all going to happen. Everybody and his brother knew that McAuliffe had tons of money, would raise more and that he would run a nasty campaign. They also knew a lot of non-tea party Republicans and social moderates did not trust him.

Yet despite knowing that, they had no strategy for victory. Conservatives win, and GOVERN when they run positive campaigns and reach out to others and build winning coalitions.

And the Republican seems to have (barely) won the Attorney General election.

Many non tea party Republicans had kinda hoped he'd lose by 10% forcing the super conservatives to concede. But he did not. And if the Libertarian candidate (who ran for State Senate as a Republican 2 years ago) had not garned 7% of the vote, Cuccinelli might have won. So the fight for the Republican party's soul will continue.
 

As for your question about seeing ACA the mess coming and failing to ask for more time, the answer seems to me to lie somewhere between a pathological insistence, endemic to the administration, that the President must be insulated from bad news and a presidential preference for just not knowing stuff.

Why would we expect the President to know about the looming Obamacare meltdown (and respond accordingly) when he doesn't even know which world leaders we're spying on, or that the IRS is unfairly targeting conservative groups, or that the CIA director had potentially compromised himself, or that the DOJ was tapping the AP, or about the notorious Fast and Furious operation.

In order for the buck to stop with the president, he has to know it's coming.
 

I associate myself 100 percent with CTL and IPLG and their remarks.

In re sphericalfrictionlesscow: Too Facile. "President Obama is too honest and smart to be honest with dumb Americans." NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!

In truth, Republicans are on record for two years predicting the exact "nuanced" outcome that has come to pass--and the President and his followers are all over the record denying it and accusing the GOP of scare-mongering.
 

Just realized an early-morning error. I meant to paste in Major Garrett's story from the National Journal for "Crisis of Confidence," But I inserted the Fournier piece from ex. 2 again by mistake. Sorry. Here is the right piece: http://www.nationaljournal.com/all-powers/obama-s-crisis-of-confidence-20131105
 

Eh.... You can never have too much Fournier.
 

My recipe was 2 parts Fournier / 1 part Garrett. But I cannot disagree with you, Mark. Fournier is a straight-shooting, super journalist.
 

I like the spherical cow (even though I’m against GMOs) but I have to say I relate more to WF’s first comments. To point (3) I may add as an inveterate New Yorker who lived through the mess of mayor Dinkins’ administration of this crazy city, that I cannot help but feel a little apprehensive with our new democratic mayor elect. To me De Blasio’s “tale of two cities” campaign bit sounded just as divisive as the point it tried to make. It has been more than two decades since a democrat held the mayor office in a fairly rabid progressive environment and that should be telling for both parties. As for all the other points in today’s comment section, thank you to IPLawGuy for a very informative synopsis.
 

In re: Waco Farmer on NYC's mayoral race--

Bloomberg's administration represented to me the excesses of both parties. Banning trans fats in NYC kitchens was important and had a measurable positive impact, but Bloomberg's attempt to ban pops over 16 oz. irritated me immensely. Obesity is a problem in NYC, and it's a problem the city government can help fix. But Bloomberg's attempted solution was both draconian-seeming and utterly useless. And then there's stop-and-frisk, a policy that targets minorities, takes away liberty, and hasn't been shown to help matters in any significant way.

Frankly, it scares me a little that Bloomberg could be considered a moderate conservative. While we disagree on many issues, something I've always deeply respected about self-proclaimed conservatives is their commitment to small, democratic government that intervenes only when absolutely necessary. When someone violates that principle in such an utterly egregious way...

I can see why NYC chose de Blasio. At least he calls himself a big-government liberal. At least he seems like he'll focus on directly helping the lower-income in NYC instead of dictating the amount of soda a single serving can buy them.
 

Micah, I see your point and I don’t think anybody disagrees that Bloomberg was a little autocrat, but some of the things he accomplished via his draconian ways are now models implemented in other big urban areas not just in the US. I think obesity is far more a problem in other American cities than it is in NYC. Since having a car in NYC is a luxury, most people get to exercise their obese rear ends up and down the subway stairs, in their cheap rent walk-ups or in broken elevator project high-rises. I agree with you though that a ban on the gallon size soda is ridiculous. As you note De Blasio “seems like he'll focus on directly helping the lower-income in NYC” but I still didn’t like his seemingly manipulative strategy on a tale of two cities.
 

The big problem with the ACA computer system is that they did not have enough funding and delayed work on it until after the SCt ruling, coupled with the fact that half of the states dumped the marketplace work on the feds, who, when the law was passed expected the states would take that and the medicaid expansion money. Plus, the House committees have had the leadership of the team responsible for development of the web site tied up in hearing after hearing after hearing and responding to thousands of requests from GOP house members. Can't do a good job of overseeing programming and spend 90 percent of your time responding to Congresspeople. It was a strategy from the start to cause failure.
 

The big problem with the ACA computer system is that they did not have enough funding and delayed work on it until after the SCt ruling, coupled with the fact that half of the states dumped the marketplace work on the feds, who, when the law was passed expected the states would take that and the medicaid expansion money. Plus, the House committees have had the leadership of the team responsible for development of the web site tied up in hearing after hearing after hearing and responding to thousands of requests from GOP house members. Can't do a good job of overseeing programming and spend 90 percent of your time responding to Congresspeople. It was a strategy from the start to cause failure.
 

Responding Quietly, Part One

A Few Thoughts for Micah:

1. Looks like neither one of us are big fans of Bloomberg. In truth, Rudy G is the man that saved NYC--and Mayor B merely rode his wave for three terms. Notwithstanding, the three Bloomberg terms, relative to the local and historic alternatives, represented an extension of a moderately conservative governing philosophy.

2. if Bloomberg is not a moderate conservative, if he is a draconian conservative, what do we call the myriad conservatives to the right of him?

3. As you say, Bloomberg has a really big Progressive streak to his policies. I agree. In truth, he is a Progressive at heart, using government to make life better for people, which often translates into government saving people from themselves, which sometimes means trampling liberty to achieve greater goods.

4. On the other hand, I am much more patient with his conservative "law and order" bent toward increased safety and order over "too much liberty" in the case of the "stop and frisk." Seems to me that a program designed to lower crime in a high minority area in which a high percentage of crimes committed are committed by minorities would logically yield a disproportionate amount of minority "stops." Seems logical and good policing.

And I cannot prove that the past two decades of pragmatic policing policies in NYC have yielded this bigger result, but it is true the NYC is a uniquely safe American big city. And I do give the overall policing policies a lot of credit for that.
 

Responding Quietly, Part Two

Even if true, it is bad form to blame your opponent for your failures. ACA was drafted and passed without any GOP cooperation or votes. The policy was planned out and implemented (over the course of four years) completely by the Obama Administration. Democrats own it.

And Democrats need to make up their mind whether it is a great policy that will be even greater once everybody realizes how great it is--or whether the political play is to blame the GOP for sabotaging their great idea and giving us this debacle. But the two game plans do not complement one another.
 

"...in that it underscores the stupidity of public drunkenness. Or private drunkenness, for that matter." Picking on drunkenness is, of course, an easy thing in America. But it is my experience that a few drinks too many on occasion turns most folks into more friendly, kind, loving, and generous individuals. Perhaps, thus, more Christlike. I think it's worth consideration that something as simple as an American family of four sleeping cozily each night in a 3,000 square foot home that could conceivably give shelter to a handful of such families is most likely extraordinarily and obscenely offensive to a guy like Jesus, who I've gotta think would be more likely to roll with the dude who overimbibes, spends all his disposable income on buying rounds for everyone at the bar, and sleeps on the beach each night. Drinking can absolutely get out of hand - for anyone - but then some families of four sleep in 5, 7, and 10,000 square foot homes, and we seem to accept that. No problem. Not that boozing isn't generally accepted in the good ole U.S. of A. ;)