Noonan wrote, "All the Democrats would raise taxes as president..."

In a previous post, "Poof, Pouf Whatever" imposed his own misinterpretation of a quote from "The Logic of Political Survival." He asserted that "the president does not raise taxes, Congress does." Presumably that remark would apply to Noonan, whom he was defending. In practice, presidents get the tax rates they intend to set.

Although the selectorate theory of de Mesquita and his collaborators identifies a leader who sets tax rates, it does not lose predictive force in polities with checks and balances. The notion of leader in that theory is a useful abstraction: "...although we have discussed the idea of treating groups of political actors as 'the leader,' as in our example of the United States, we will talk about a leader as an individual" (de Mesquita 2005, 74).

I'll repeat the quote from "The Logic of Political Survival" by de Mesquita et al; it also bears on the hopelessness of Ron Paul's candidacy.

"Leaders make three related sets of decisions. First, they choose a tax rate, which generates government revenue and influences how hard people will work. Second, they spend revenue in a manner designed to keep incumbents in office, particularly by sustaining support among members of their winning coalition. Finally, they provide various mixes of public and private goods."

For Ron Paul to stay in office, he will have to ensure that the sale of government property, such as the electromagnetic spectrum, will go to members of his winning coalition--those people who "control enough of the instruments of power to keep the elected leader in office." This is incompatible with libertarian principles. The process of privatizing the government's public goods is unsustainable: once the former public goods become private goods, most of the members of his winning coalition will not benefit from them. And the new private owners of former public goods will likely hold them out of use on speculation.

In a democracy, winning coalitions are large, and have to be maintained largely with public goods, since private goods are expensive. Paul would reduce the number of public goods to a level incompatible with sustaining support among his winning coalition.

Ron Paul has to deny global warming because he cannot explain how to privatize the ozone layer or the oceans.

If Paul were elected, for him to stay in office, he would have to ensure that the sale of government property, such as the electromagnetic spectrum, will go to members of his winning coalition--those people who "control enough of the instruments of power to keep the elected leader in office." This is incompatible with libertarian principles. The process of privatizing the government's public goods is unsustainable: once the former public goods become private goods, most of the members of his winning coalition will not benefit from them. And the new private owners of former public goods will likely hold them out of use on speculation.

In a democracy, winning coalitions are large, and have to be maintained largely with public goods, since private goods are expensive. Paul would reduce the number of public goods to a level incompatible with sustaining support among his winning coalition.

The political case for Ron Paul is hopeless.

She insisted that her senate run in New York was not a stepping stone to a presidential candidacy. Now we know otherwise.

She is a remarkably astute commodities trader. Learned it by reading books.

Having already failed at a national health care program, it is no wonder that she is cautious.

While it is true that Obama says virtually nothing, he says it well.

Yes, if you call the pilot.

Thank to Glenn Greenwald, I have my answer.

as Hillary Clinton angrily noted. But having the first black president would also be change.

The New York Times reported "black men in the United States face a far more dire situation than is portrayed by common employment and education statistics...and it has worsened in recent years even as an economic boom and a welfare overhaul have brought gains to black women and other groups."

The Afro-American man is the canary in the coal mine of social change.

Half of black men in their 20s were jobless in 2004. By their mid-30s, 6 in 10 black men who dropped out of school had spent time in prison. Many of these men grew up fatherless, and they never had good role models. All the negative trends are associated with poor schooling.

Having the first black president not only would be change, it would give hope to everyone.

Drudge alleges that insiders expect HRC to leave the race, since the prospect of a double digit defeat would do irreprable damage to the "Clinton brand." www.drudgereport.com/flashhn.htm

I firmly believe that Clinton has the emotional range to lead this country.

Obama noted that "this process is a grind"--meaning that the tears, real or not, were due to the stresses of the campaign. He might have said only that he did not care to comment. But, his remark indicated that Clinton was succumbing to stress and showing it.

I disagree with Gloria Steinem that white women have it worse than black men.

On March 20, 2006, The New York Times reported that "black men in the United States face a far more dire situation than is portrayed by common employment and education statistics...and it has worsened in recent years even as an economic boom and a welfare overhaul have brought gains to black women and other groups." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/national/20blackmen.html

Half of black men in their 20s were jobless in 2004. By their mid-30s, 6 in 10 black men who dropped out of school had spent time in prison. Many of these men grew up fatherless, and they never had good role models. All the negative trends are associated with poor schooling.

The Afro-American man is the canary in the coal mine of social change.