Inevitability

Someone should tell that to the folks at the Dear Corner:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWIxYTIxMTIyZTMwYmU5YmI3ZjE4ZDMyNjRkY2FjMWE=

Actually though, I fully agree with you. This is far from over. All it takes is one event, like the dreaded whitey tape as per Mike Puckett. It's really only over on November 5th. An even then it may not be over if GOP lawyers have their way.

Maybe Mike Puckett needs to e-mail Jim Manzi? Damn-it Mike, how long are you going to hold off on this?

Intrade gives John McCain roughly a 15% chance of winning. Therefore an investment in the neighborhood of $15 dollars will return $100 dollars if John McCain pulls it out and wins in two weeks.

Receive roughly 6.5 times one's investment in two weeks?

On an annualized basis that looks like a return of nearly 17000% -- seventeen thousand percent! -- terrific odds if you are correct.

Yeah, but if someone were to offer me an early-buyer discount on a "Don't blame me, I voted for McCain" bumper sticker, I'd take it.

Mark,

Either you live out in the countryside where the R's gather, or you like having your car vandalized.

Not every D is a psycho by a long shot, but they've got far too many nutjobs on their side for my comfort.

Which is their goal, of course.

If O doesn't win, expect massive retaliation. Up to and including riots.

But K, what are the Berkleyans / Upper West Sider's gonna do? Trash their own neighborhoods or actually travel to a conservative-voting neighborhood and start something? I'm fine with #1 and, heh heh, don't expect #2 to be very successful.

The only retaliation I really expect are continued MSM own-grave-digging and Hollywood political irrelevance.

--

For the record, I don't think McCain can win this in two weeks. But Obama can lose it. That said, since Obams's avowed socialism and ties to domestic terrorists hasn't scared off the center, I have no idea what would short of him murdering someone on live TV.

A couple more random thoughts ...

-----

Obama has such a financial lead he may feel that gaming the prediction markets with a few $million in bets as a good investment. Once he sets the odds a herd mentality can take over and keep the momentum of his inevitability going without any additional expenditures.

-----

Anger at the MSM may be causing conservative voters to refuse to talk to pollsters. I wonder if/how they control for this.

-----

We can't be sure that the guys who run the e-voting machines have already decided on a Manchurian candidate.

-----

A real town hall, with just Sarah Palin and some real small-town American voters (without any media filter), broadcast live and uncut would be interesting.

Wasn't Ken Adelman one of the Iraq War architects? On the board at the Project for New American Century (PNAC)?

Anyway he is voting for Obama:

The New Yorker reported on October 20, 2008, that Adelman decided to buck his conservative leanings and vote for Senator Barack Obama for President on November 4, 2008. According to the New Yorker, Adelman made his decision "[p]rimarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment." He explained:

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I've concluded that that's no way a president can act under pressure. Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate. That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office. I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain's main two, and best two, themes for his campaign - Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

You know, the more I hear people whose judgment I don't respect slamming Sarah Palin, the more I think she's got to be good. Right now, she's the only one of the top 4 candidates I find acceptable.

Sarah Palin is such an idiot according to Christopher Hitchens. Such an idiot that he wants her to be boycotted until she gives a Press Conference replete with well formed sentences.

Here's hoping that Stewart here thinks that Hitch had and has bad judgement.

Acceptable for what? Hmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmmm.

It's a good thing if she gives some here the Hotties. I would be worried if McCain or Biden or Obama had that effect. Yikes!

...he wants her to be boycotted until she gives a Press Conference replete with well formed sentences.

You mean like this?

This anti-Palin stupidity (and ignorance) does not enhance your prestige around here.

Stewart, why don't you respect Adelman? Just curious.

The full New Yorker blurb was just a bit longer than the blurb quoted above, and since much of the rest of it is uncomplimentary to Obama and actually gives a reason to not vote for Obama, I'll assume Rand won't mind if I reprint the whole quote here.

From the New Yorker:

Ken Adelman is a lifelong conservative Republican. Campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001. Adelman’s friendship with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their wives goes back to the sixties, and he introduced Cheney to Paul Wolfowitz at a Washington brunch the day Reagan was sworn in.

In recent years, Adelman and his friends Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz fell out over his criticisms of the botching of the Iraq War. Still, he remains a bona-fide hawk (“not really a neo-con but a con-con”) who has never supported a Democrat for President in his life. Two weeks from now that’s going to change: Ken Adelman intends to vote for Barack Obama. He can hardly believe it himself.

Adelman and I exchanged e-mails today about his decision. He asked rhetorically,

Why so, since my views align a lot more with McCain’s than with Obama’s? And since I truly dread the notion of a Democratic president, Democratic House, and hugely Democratic Senate?

Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

I sure hope Obama is more open, centrist, sensible—dare I say, Clintonesque—than his liberal record indicates, than his cooperation with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid portends. If not, I will be even more startled by my vote than I am now.

...he wants her to be boycotted until she gives a Press Conference replete with well formed sentences.

I should add that this fetish for "well-formed sentences" in a press conference (or even an unscripted campaign appearance) doesn't seem to apply to the top of your ticket when he's off the teleprompter.

Bob, I doubt that there were many Democrats who respected Adelman (or Powell, for that matter, since he defended the decision to go into Iraq before the UN) until they went a little nuts and endorsed The One.

The notion that other Republicans are going to go along with either when their arguments for him are so full of holes are pretty much nil. Though it may help with "independents."

For instance, does Adelman think that a "community organizer" was qualified to be a "mid-level intelligence analyst"? Gee, no one thought to ask him.

More from Kenneth Adelman:

The Republican handling of the war made me value “experience” far less. If Cheney, Rumsfeld & Powell are the epitome of experience, I’ll take the alternative. They’ve given experience a bad name.

Further thought: McCain’s campaign soured me a lot. His hiring of the Bush attack squad, South Carolina 2000, made me view this honorable man as heading a dishonorable effort. And that’s still the case. It’s pretty disgusting, what he’s doing…

Perhaps Colin Powell and Kenneth Adelman and Christopher Buckley are mistaken.

However they demonstrate that folks other than hypnotized moon-bats support Obama.

Why so, since my views align a lot more with McCain's than with Obama's?

Now, how young do you have to be to think that the political theories involved here have more to do with someone's decision -- especially such a politically well-connected someone -- than personal stuff? Fact is, a wealthy, well-connected guy is going to do very well no matter who wins the election. Even if Obama flips out and starts the Bolshevik Revolution on January 22, he's going to need smart, capable, ruthless, politically savvy people to head up the People's Truth Brigades. And who do you suppose that will be? Naturally, all those wealthy, well-connected, successful guys.

In Adelman's case, given that the consequences of a bit more taxation, a bit slower economic growth, a bit less liberty for the peasantry are entirely theoretical -- they won't affect him at all, on a practical level -- I can think of a bunch of personal reasons that might influence his vote.

One is quoted in the story:

In recent years, Adelman and his friends Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz fell out

When you're personally on the outs with the ideological leaders of the party, is it any surprise you feel a bit like sticking it to them?

Then there's what I call the Peggy Noonan effect. Folks who worked for Reagan and feel they are the Keepers of the One True Flame, and feel today's Republican whippersnappers are just not up to Golden Age standards, and, worse, don't respect the old folks, at least, not enough to beg their advice. Here we see a touch of the Noonan ah kidz these days...why when I was young... snobbery:

I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency.

As if working for an arms-control agency in the 2000s is a really important, really tough job, genuine rocket science, like it maybe possibly was in the 1970s and 80s. But you know, I think the real problem here is that Governor Palin isn't a greybeard, one of the good ol' boys, pals with Jim Baker and Paul Nitze. Indeed, she may not even know who they are. That smarts, if you think your generation of leaders was the greatest ever. (I think something similar operates in the coolness Bill Clinton feels towards Obama. Obama isn't properly respectful of the Clintons.)

Don't forget, too, that GWB dissed a whole lot of the Reagan-era graybeards. There are subtle reasons for this, e.g. Texan Republicans don't think so much of California Republicans, and there's always the possibility he doesn't think RR's team did very well by his old man (which they did not, in truth). I don't think there's a lot of love lost between the RR R's and the GWB R's.

Anyway, I wish we could stop getting these celebrity "counter-endorsement" arguments from the Obama people. Folks, unlike the Democrats, who really do run a celebrity culture, the rank and file Republicans are generally unimpressed when a Really Big Star says foo or bar. I mean, who cares? Part of the Republican creed of individuality is to think for you own damn self, and figure that with Ken Adelman's opinion and $3, you can get a nice Starbucks latte, and that about sums up its intrinsic value.

Carl,

Winning over Republican votes is largely irrelevant. Self identified Democrats increasingly outnumber self identified Republicans.

Independents matter of course AND after the election, Obama will have the ability to trot out people such as Colin Powell and Kenneth Adelman to counter arguments that he was elected through an excess of partisanship.

There also is an open question concerning who the Republicans shall rally around:

Sarah Palin?
Bobby Jindal?
Mike Huckabee?
Mitt Romney?

There are intramural reasons for Republicans to endorse Obama now and say later that Sarah Palin was why, and thereby promote their preferred successor.

Carl, I don't think the point of citing Republican endorsements for Obama, or for that matter, cross-party endorsements in either direction, is to discourage people from thinking for themselves -- it is to encourage it.

But then again: Rand said Mike G's "anti-Palin stupidity does not enhance [his] prestige around here", so it is interesting to list prominent "Obamacans" who might possibly be prestigious around here. Rand, I realize you are not a Republican, but it is hard for me to predict who you will find prestigious, so I'll just list some Republicans who have said nice things about Obama, with the understanding that you probably despise some of them. I wonder if you like even one of the following names.

So, to the extent that Adelman is opposed to McCain because of Palin, Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker agree, right? Two more prominent Republicans. And as for Republicans supporting Obama, there is Larry Hunter - another guy from the Reagan white house, and there is the Chicago Tribune's editorial board, who took pains to point out that this was the first time they ever supported a Democrat for President. And there's Francis Fukuyama, and Susan Eisenhower, and then there is there's Krauthammer's praise if not endorsement, and David Brooks - did he just praise or did he endorse? Doesn't matter - I know Rand doesn't like Brooks. I like him, and one of my more liberal friends find this hilarious - he calls me a Brooks Republican. And then there's that Smerconish guy's endorsement... ... and Buckley and Powell of course.
Will these pundits and personalities encourage Republicans to be think for themselves? Maybe. In any case, their anti-Palin and/or pro-Obama stances shouldn't and probably won't hurt their prestige.

...they demonstrate that folks other than hypnotized moon-bats support Obama.

How do they do that? I could easily define people who support Obama as hypnotized moonbats. That they now include Hitchens, Edelman et al wouldn't change that in any way. Why do you persist in showing how little you understand how my mind works?

Rand, I realize you are not a Republican, but it is hard for me to predict who you will find prestigious, so I'll just list some Republicans who have said nice things about Obama, with the understanding that you probably despise some of them. I wonder if you like even one of the following names.

Bob, this is stupid. I do not base my vote on what anyone else thinks, let alone Republicans. Endorsements are meaningless to me, unless I have had zero other information. I have abundant other information. Why do you (and others) stupidly waste your time trying to persuade me or mine because of what other people think?

We respond to facts and arguments, not perceived celebrity endorsements. Every time you or others do this, it simply lowers you in our esteem, because it shows you to be completely clueless about us.

These so-called "conservative" pundits jumping ship late in the campaign is infuriating. As far as I'm concerned, they believe an Obama victory is inevitable and are trying to position themselves to still have viable careers after the Messiah assumes the throne. They disgust me.

In my opinion, if McCain had chosen anyone other than Palin his incompetent campaign would be dead and buried by now and we would be looking at an Obama landslide. The very future of the American Republic may be riding on the shoulders of one woman.

I don't remember where I saw it, but somebody said, "If the Republicans win it will be because of Palin; if they lose it will be because of McCain."

The point was not to persuade you to vote for Obama or to think less of Palin.

My point was that those, like Mike G and myself, who think ill of Palin or well of Obama are in good company, even for those who think of "good company" as consisting of primarily of conservatives. Citing well-known people is necessary to demonstrate this, because it gives us a common reference point.

Also, the conservatives listed above who are supporting Obama (or criticizing Palin) certainly gave arguments for their support. If you're now saying (or are considering saying) that anyone who supports Obama can be defined as a hypnotized moonbat, are you really so sure that you are responsive to facts and arguments? The arguments given by Republicans who are for Obama aren't necessary right, but given their source, they probably should be considered by other conservatives.

Rand wrote - "We respond to facts and arguments, not perceived celebrity endorsements."

I wish more people would think like this. Unfortantely, most of the voters from the Socialists illuminati party will vote Obama only, without consideration of the facts or impact of the implied direction the canidate presents. I'm sure that both sides have people voting strictly on emotions, but I know that its far more prevelant for those dressed in blue.

My point was that those, like Mike G and myself, who think ill of Palin or well of Obama are in good company, even for those who think of "good company" as consisting of primarily of conservatives.

And why is it that you would imagine that I would care that you are in "good company," particularly when I am not only not a Republican, but not a conservative?

Also, the conservatives listed above who are supporting Obama (or criticizing Palin) certainly gave arguments for their support.

They did indeed. They were stupid arguments.

If you're now saying (or are considering saying) that anyone who supports Obama can be defined as a hypnotized moonbat, are you really so sure that you are responsive to facts and arguments?

Of course I am. But they have to be a) actual facts and b) good arguments. The source is irrelevant. Particularly since I'm neither a Republican or a conservative (though it doesn't really matter).

But some commenters never learn. I have a related post above.

The other angle on endorsements is to consider expertise rather than prestige or even a specific argument.

For example, Warren Buffet is considered an expert in certain aspects of economics. When people hear McCain and Obama both say that they'd consider appointing Buffet to their administrations, it confirms that Buffet's expertise is non-ideological. When Warren Buffet supports Obama, it sends a message to those with less economic expertise.

Similarly: When Colin Powell, someone with more national security and diplomacy expertise than almost any American, supports Obama over McCain, it sends a message to those without such expertise.

I'm all for independent thinking. But valuing an expert's opinion (within the narrow field of that person's expertise) is an additional good strategy for success.

For example, Warren Buffet is considered an expert in certain aspects of economics.

Only by people who don't understand economics. All that Warren Buffet is is a good stock picker.

When Colin Powell, someone with more national security and diplomacy expertise than almost any American...

This is nonsense. There are many people with more national security and diplomacy expertise than Colin Powell. After all, he wasn't able to get the UN to remove Saddam. So what good was he?

Anonymous, McCain said he'd appoint Buffet Secretary of the Treasury. If Buffet is just a good stock picker, what does this mean?

And if it is nonsense that Powell has more national security and diplomacy expertise than almost any American, can you list some Americans with more expertise? While a person's resume doesn't define that person's expertise, a resume can't be ignored, and who else in the last 100 years has had a similar resume? George Marshall comes to mind. Anyone else? Certainly not very many people at all, right?

Doesn't the "Celebrity Endorsements" arguement basically boil down to, "Don''t you want to be cool... just like all the other cool kids?"

No, I don't. I could give less of a care about "cool", and I feel that anyone who desires me to care about 'cool' is trying to sell me a bill of goods. I want to select a President based on how well he will perform his job in office, on his character and the value of his judgements, and on how much he cares for and values his country. By those criterion McCain is no prize... but Obama doesn't register on the meter at all. Juvenile appeals to celebrity won't cahnge that.

But valuing an expert's opinion (within the narrow field of that person's expertise) is an additional good strategy for success.

Well, along with your celebrity worship, Bob, this is an excellent diagnostic criterion for your membership in the New Left, which borrows quite a lot from the 1930s "scientific socialism" left on which F. A. Hayek wrote so eloquently, and which was severely traumatized by its unfortunate premature endorsement of Stalin.

See, Bob, your mistake is in thinking that because it obviously makes more sense to ask a mechanic about that funny noise in the truck's rear axle, it must make sense in all decisions to consult the person who is most "expert" in the area. It's quite a logical conclusion, given its premises, but nevertheless disastrously false.

Ponder this: why are people happier choosing their own mates, rather than having their parents do it? The parents are unarguably more expert -- why don't the youngster's submit?

Because there's more to some choices than the externalities of the outcome. The act of choosing is itself sometimes a vital part of the quality of the choice. Your act of choosing your wife makes the outcome (marriage to this particular woman) qualitatively different, better.

In a similar sense, the point of voting is not just to get the "best" candidate, for whatever definition of "best" we might imagine. A major point (indeed Madison asserted the major point) of republicanism is to bind the people together through their act of deliberate, conscious, self-determined choice. The fact that you make up your own mind about who to choose for your vote makes the result of all the voting (the President we get) qualitatively better.

That's a major reason why celebrity endorsements are just stupid. Even endorsements from "experts." If you are influenced at all, the value of your vote to the Republic is decreased, just in about the same way that your wife would think less of your marriage if she found out you married her in part because your father or Dr. Phil told you to.

Anonymous, McCain said he'd appoint Buffet Secretary of the Treasury. If Buffet is just a good stock picker, what does this mean?

Anonymous was me. It means he's a good stock picker. It doesn't mean that he understands economics, or how the economy works, or the damage that tax increases will cause.

And if it is nonsense that Powell has more national security and diplomacy expertise than almost any American, can you list some Americans with more expertise?

It depends on what you mean by "expertise."

Certainly Powell's "expertise" didn't have great outcomes. He did OK militarily in the Gulf War, but he was one of the people who left the Iraqis out to dry, rather than removing Saddam a lot earlier. He couldn't persuade the UN to remove Saddam, despite the abundant evidence that everyone accepted at the time.

What is the basis for this esteem for his expertise?

Not that it matters, of course, for reasons already stated.

Carl asked: "Ponder this: why are people happier choosing their own mates, rather than having their parents do it? The parents are unarguably more expert -- why don't the youngster's submit?

Carl, your example is pretty silly, as a person's parents are quite often not experts on who their child should marry. For starters, to pick an obvious aspect of it, sexual attraction is a significant component of marriage in our society, and most people's parents aren't privy to what turns their kids on. They are often equally non-privy to other, non-sexual, aspects of their kids' lives. The reason people are often best at choosing their own spouses is that they really are the world's greatest expert on what is going on in their own heads. We can all think of people who clearly don't understand their own thought processes, and they are the worse for it, in marriage and in other things, but it certainly isn't the case, as you argue, that parents are "unarguably more expert", and I can't believe that even you believe that.

One's comfort level with a president may indeed a personal subjective decision like picking a spouse, but when it comes to economics, national defense, and diplomacy, it really does make sense to consider expertise, just as it does with repairing a truck.

Bush was famously elected on the notion that he's the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with, and since then, people have been pointing out that you don't pick a brain surgeon on that basis, nor should you pick a president. McCain was a soldier, and then a Senator. Obama majored in international relations, and eventually became a senator. Review Powell's resume - it seriously dwarfs both of the candidates. Powell isn't a "celebrity" - he is an expert. Powell is hardly faultless, but considering Powell's specific expertise and recommendation for a job that requires a lot of the similar skills makes sense.

To be fair, there are plenty of generals and diplomats who will tell you that McCain would be better for military and international affairs. So, the argument I'm making isn't in support of Obama per se, but in support of a certain kind of endorsement. That said, it is hard to find someone with Powell's set of skills and experiences.

> Rand, I realize you are not a Republican, but it is hard for me to predict who you will find prestigious, so I'll just list some Republicans who have said nice things about Obama, with the understanding that you probably despise some of them.

Does Bob think that those Repubs should be believed in general, or only when they endorse Obama? In particular, did their word on other issues drive his position?

If not, if he doesn't think that they're generally reliable, why should anyone believe them wrt Obama?

Apart, of course, from the fact that they agree with him on Obama....

Carl, your example is pretty silly, as a person's parents are quite often not experts on who their child should marry...[followed by more theoretical speculation]

Bob, it's a nice theory, but I believe the empirical data prove you wrong, and that's that. Statistically speaking, arranged marriages are more stable than those people pick out for themselves. That's why they were the rule, not the exception, through most of human history. We indulge in the luxury of picking our own mates these days because we can afford to make mistakes, get divorced, try again. Our distant ancestors could not afford such mistakes, and so they used a more reliable method.

For starters, to pick an obvious aspect of it, sexual attraction is a significant component of marriage in our society, and most people's parents aren't privy to what turns their kids on

Dude, advertisers, total strangers, are very good at picking out what turns kids on. On what basis do you imagine parents would be worse? Furthermore, as the divorce rate and the testimony of old folks attests, sexual attraction is about the least important component of a successful marriage.

Anyway, I see you've entirely missed the point. Let me try again a little bit: the point of an election is not just to pick a particularly able leader. In fact, a moment's reflection should convince you that an election is a really stupid way to pick an able leader. If ability were all you wanted, you should have a meritocratic selection system, the way you do when you pick, say, Olympic gold medalists. You don't ask the audience to vote on who does the floor exercise best: you establish objective criteria, or at the least employ expert judges. Popularity has nothing to do with it.

In fact, ability is of modest use in a President, and superior ability is a positive threat, as it enables the President to wiggle outside the Constitutional limits on his power, and encourages him to pursue his private agenda, whatever it might be, instead of being constrained by what the nation needs.

What's the main point of an election, then? It's not, really, to pick a President. You could very likely establish some basic criteria and pick randomly from the 100,000 or so citizens that meet them, and do just as well.

The point is the election process, in the re-legitimization of government, in the metaphorical way we each re-sign the Constitution, in the profound ratification of the social contract that occurs when we each decide for ourselves who the President ought to be, go down and cast the vote, and accept the majority outcome. It is, if you will, a giant "family meeting" in which we thrash out any number of major troubling issues and arrive at consensus, or at least tolerable compromises. The choice of the President is largely a symbol of those compromises.

So reducing the choice of President to the mere selection of the most highly-qualified technician is an abortion of the idea of republicanism. With such a concept of leadership, you really should simply live in an absolute dictatorship, where the dictator is the most able man available.

Been away from the computer a few hours--
Bob,you answer yourself when you write:

" Bob wrote:

Stewart, why don't you respect Adelman? Just curious.

From the New Yorker:

Ken Adelman is a lifelong conservative Republican."

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Republican. Adelman is a well-connected Washington insider, one who (surprise!)does not like the outsider with a history of fighting corruption in high places. That Palin will take on powerful figures in her own party establishment, and a bad cop as well, makes her resume sparkle in comparison. Like Rand, no endorsement is likely to be a deciding factor for me, but certainly not the likes of Powell or Adelman.

Carl,

Regarding arranged marriages, I believe they were the rule for so long for economic reasons, and they were stable at times when divorce wasn't an option. I don't think that arranged marriages had anything to do with parents' superior ability to pick spouses who would make their children happy.

As for attraction, while I have pretty standard tastes, advertisers never seem to get it right for me. Like many geeks, I'm attracted to opinionated intelligent women who don't particularly look or act like "sexy" women in advertisements. And the qualities that I thought were attractive when I was getting serious about marriage were a little more subtle, and even further from what advertisers seem to be able to convey. Nope, I had to pick out my wife myself, not my parents, and given the complete failure of various set-ups, not even my close friends. My wife and I were the only experts in what makes us right for each other.

I did understand, and agree with your comments on the nature of the democratic process. It is a question of balance -- our representatives should reflect ourselves they should be our personal choice (so that the constitution is re-ratified, etc), but the person we choose needn't be as poorly qualified as many of us are, and if we find that we are unsure of their qualifications, paying attention to expertise-based endorsements makes sense.

Taking it back to Earth for a moment: I have to vote for various judges in the upcoming election. I never pay enough attention to know who to vote to retain. But the newspaper prints a list of endorsements from various legal organizations, representing the left, the right, and the staid mainstream. If all groups are unanimous in refusing to endorse a sitting judge, you can be sure something is wrong, and you can safely vote him out, without knowing anything else.

Rand acknowledged as much -- endorsements are useful when there is zero additional information. I would change Rand's rule to say that an endorsement's usefulness is inversely proportional to the amount of information you have, and whenever there is non-infinite additional information, endorsements will have some positive value. Since I'm not a military or diplomatic expert, Powell's endorsement has at least some value for me. But it should have even more value for a Republican, because of the family meeting aspects you're discussing.

This gets to the question Andy asked:

Does Bob think that those Repubs should be believed in general, or only when they endorse Obama? In particular, did their word on other issues drive his position?

Since we are talking about a "family meeting", the question isn't really whether I think Republicans for Obama are usually right. The question is whether ordinary Republicans think they are usually right.

Regarding arranged marriages, I believe they were the rule for so long for economic reasons,

Isn't that my point? That it's only our modern wealth that allows us the luxury of starter marriages?

they were stable at times when divorce wasn't an option.

Well, first of all, divorce has only been difficult in a relatively narrow span of time, and for a narrow slice of society. Generally, through much of history, for most peasants, marriage itself was pretty informal -- you just moved in together -- and divorce was similarly unadorned -- somebody just left. Let us not confuse Leave it to Beaver with the reality on the ground in, say, Germany in the 1650s.

Secondly, a marriage that would end in divorce, were it not costly, illegal, et cetera is certainly a functionally broken marriage. I don't think our ancestors made fine distinctions between a crappy marriage and an actual technically dissolved marriage. They were at pains to avoid either.

As for attraction, while I have pretty standard tastes, advertisers never seem to get it right for me.

Well, that's a bit of a contradiction in terms, is it not? Either you're standard, or they get it wrong, but it can't really be both, not when advertising through sex is so wildly successful.

But anyway, the reason they get it wrong for you in particular is not because you're tough to figure out, but because there's only one (or a few) of you. They're not making special efforts to target you, they're aiming for the broad middle. If you in particular were important enough to target specially, I think they'd nail you easily enough. Targeting someone's sexual taste was, after all, the secret to much of the Soviet intelligence success in the Cold War.

our representatives should reflect ourselves they should be our personal choice (so that the constitution is re-ratified, etc), but the person we choose needn't be as poorly qualified as many of us are, and if we find that we are unsure of their qualifications, paying attention to expertise-based endorsements makes sense.

A crack opens up. OK, then, let me propose you continue to use your language, but entirely rethink your definition of "qualified." You keep sounding like it's a question of technical savvy, like whether he's Microsoft-certified or has a PhD or got an 780 on the verbal SAT and can define "cholecystectomy."

That's nuts. The President isn't a technocratic administrator, a D&D Dungeon Master -- and if he were, vide supra, it would be crazy to select him by popular election, where the vote of an expert means exactly as much as the vote of a crack addict with an IQ of 85. You should select him by some meritocratic means, e.g. a ladder of increasingly tough exams.

The President has access to all the technical expertise he can possibly want, any time, day or night. No one is better served with wizards who can answer any question on any topic that crosses his mind at 3 AM. So any technical knowledge he's got in his head is pretty much pointless. Sarah Palin would never, even if she studied every weekend for the past 10 years, and went to Moscow on vacation every year, know as much about Russia as some 67-year-old Russian ex-pat who lived there for 40 years, worked in the Kremlin, emigrated, and has now worked the Russia desk 45 hours a week in the State Department for 5 years. So what's the point? If she has a question about Russia, she should ask the experts around her -- and certainly not wing it on the basis of her own amateur understanding. Ditto nearly any technical field, from the challenges of export control of nuclear technology to the logistic difficulties of using Predators in Waziristan.

What does the President do? He picks people to cover the major areas of government, and he better pick the right people, who are energetic, loyal, sensible, and fair. So he needs to be a fast and accurate judge of character (which is one reason Ayers and Rezko and ACORN and Wright are troubling -- what if Obama picks an al Qaeda sleeper as the next Ambassador to Pakistan? Or even just someone so clumsy and corrupt he ruins a fragile alliance?)

He also makes the decisions where technical knowledge is insufficient to pick the correct answer (which is why the technical experts bring it to him, unable to make a recommendation themselves). War, sanctions, talk talk in the UN? Humanitarian aid, covert money and training, guns and weapons? Waterboard this bastard, which is disgusting, or accept that a few more bright-eyed 20-year-old men are going to come home to their young wives in a pine box?

To make those decisions, when the buck stops at the Oval Office desk, technical skill is of no use. You need a profoundly deep and steady moral sense, humility and modesty, a consistent but compassionate sense of what's right and wrong, and the strong ability to connect with people, to see what life is like through their eyes. In short, you need a sterling character. You need to be the guy whom even his enemies grudgingly admire for his integrity and steadfastness. You don't have to be right all the time, but you do need to be 100% trustworthy.

So: I urge you to equate "qualifications" with character and judgment of men and then, yep, I agree the best "qualified" man should win. And a general election becomes a decent way to find him, since it is exactly his character and judgment of men that will shine through over time in such a process, assuming the process isn't distorted by (for example) having a media establishment that is ethically corrupt (but that's another sad story).

It's funny, but Adelman exactly fits a pattern I've been noticing. Excluding low-information voters, who largely vote on emotional or tribal bases, the people that I am seeing supporting Obama largely hope that he doesn't mean what he says, while those that oppose him largely believe he means exactly what he says.

With what Jeff said, I think many believe Obama won't do what he says, because Obama has shifted his position in the general election from those he had during the primary season or most of his adult life. This is seen as him moving to the center, and thus not really as radical.

I find it hard for a person who carefully chose to hang out with Marxist professors in college, worked with a socialist cop-killer in a small office building for 2 years after college, worked for a gun-control lobby, and attended a radical church for 20 years is going to just change his beliefs over a few months. I certainly don't buy that his beliefs will change with an endorsement.

Hmmmmm.

@ Bob

"then there is there's Krauthammer's praise if not endorsement"

Excuse me?

When did Charles Krauthammer "praise" Obama?

This I have to see with my own eyes. Particularly since Krauthammer has, with deliciously precise language, skewered Obama repeatedly for months.

Hmmmmm.

"It's funny, but Adelman exactly fits a pattern I've been noticing. Excluding low-information voters, who largely vote on emotional or tribal bases, the people that I am seeing supporting Obama largely hope that he doesn't mean what he says, while those that oppose him largely believe he means exactly what he says."

Congrats!

You've nailed the perfect one paragraph description of the 2008 election cycle.

I doff my cap to you sir!

Well if I were wearing one. I guess I'll have to bob my cigar instead.

Memo asks "When did Charles Krauthammer "praise" Obama? This I have to see with my own eyes."

Memo, at the link below, you can see Krauthammer's piece with your own eyes, although if you could see it with someone else's eyes, that would be kind of cool too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100203043.html

The piece has sufficient criticism of Obama that you won't suspect that Krauthammer was replaced with a pro-Obama lookalike. The quote many have been citing is "Nonetheless, he's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament."

>> Does Bob think that those Repubs should be believed in general, or only when they endorse Obama? In particular, did their word on other issues drive his position?

> Since we are talking about a "family meeting", the question isn't really whether I think Republicans for Obama are usually right. The question is whether ordinary Republicans think they are usually right.

"family meeting"? Is that code for "invalid reasons are acceptable"? My family has more rigor, but it's nice to know more about Bob's.

Bob offered the Powell endorsement as a reason for Simberg to support Obama. That "reason" makes sense only if Bob finds that Powell is generally reliable. Curiously, he doesn't want to say that, suggesting that Bob knows that this "reason" is invalid.

From the Krauthammer piece, indeed the sentence proceeding the excerpted above: "Obama has shown that he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) and an alarming lack of self-definition -- do you really know who he is and what he believes?"

This is what passes as an endorsement and rational for voting preference? Stupidity indeed.

"Nonetheless, he's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament."

Bob, in the context of the story, which is repeating a cutting comment made about FDR, this is actually not a compliment. It can be translated roughly as he's a first class bullshit artist, not the kind to lose his composure when a piece of his fraud is exposed, and he's got the craftiness to back it up.

Krauthammer generally doesn't admire raw intellectual firepower very highly. He tends to value what you might call street or people smarts more, along with self-honesty. Given his profession (psychiatrist) that's not too surprising. A shrink deals all day with people who use their powerful intelligence not to accomplish stuff, or penetrate to the truth of things, but to rationalize laziness and moral corruption, and to build elaborate fantasies that conceal painful truths.

Andy,

The "family meeting" notion was from Carl Pham's comment, above. I may not have done justice to Carl's metaphor, but you can be assured that my comment says nothing about my family - my comment was a response to Carl's own comment. Any references to "family meetings" originate with Carl. I doubt that you could learn much about Carl's own family from his comment either, and I think refrain from trying to insult anyone here by talking about their family.

Bob offered the Powell endorsement as a reason for Simberg to support Obama.

Furthermore, I did not offer Powell's endorsement as a reason for "Simberg" to support Obama. I explained above, and I'm not going to repeat myself, but you're not showing any evidence of careful reading. Maybe you're tired.

Carl,

That certainly is an alternative read on Krauthammer's piece. I think that if Krauthammer wanted to be as strident as you, he would have been. I believe Krauthammer was referring to same temperment that General McPeak, who led the air war in Iraq, was commenting on back in March:

Appearing at the press conference with the candidate, McPeak memorably praised the Senator as having the right temperament to lead the military, calling him “no drama Obama.”

From: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_22/news/27623-1.html?type=printer_friendly

General McPeak led the air war in the first Iraq conflict, he was the chairman of Bob Dole’s Oregon presidential campaign in 1996, and voted for Bush in 2000.

McPeak is hardly unique - lots of military leaders have commented on Obama's temperament, including Colin Powell, and I think Krauthammer's piece, taken as a whole, with its deliberate contrast to McCain, who is characterized as "frenetic", was also referencing this calm temperament, and this constitutes praise for Obama, mixed in of course, with Krauthammer's criticism.

Yes, the Uno will calmly gut the military, calmly capitulate to every two-bit dictator that threatens us and calmly abrogate our sovereignty to the UN. All positions he has articulated sometime in the past 20 months.
If McCain would use these and the Uno's lie about accepting public financing, some of it would leak through the censors in the media and people would get a true picture.

Bob, you may have hit upon one of the reasons for Republican apostasy on the choice between McCain and Obama. I think a lot of R's feel that McCain is inherently a meddler. He hears a popular klaxon call for this or that reform, and bang, he's on the job, pulling together a gigantic bipartisan effort to massively rewrite the rules of the Republic to Fix Things.

For people who are inherently leery of changing stuff, and inherently contemptuous of flapping in the public opinion breeze, shifting in response to every momentary popular fad, this is a major turn-off.

By contrast, Obama seems like he really doesn't give a shit about much besides achieving the next rank on the great faculty ladder he seems to feel he's ascending. (Be warned, Obamaphiles, he's likely to serve as President for only about 6 months before leaving Earth to begin his campaign for President of the Galaxy.)

He seems kind of...low energy, except when it comes to his own personal glory. He does the relaxed, cool, just hangin' kind of thing very well.

Putting that together, I can see that R's in discouragement, who believe the big government aspects of the Bush Administration have been disastrous for the country and the party, might well take a flyer on low-temperature Barry, on the theory that he might do nothing more than institute some cosmetic changes around the edges (double funding for Head Start, withdraw troops from Iraq 2% faster than Bush would have, send every taxpayer a spanking new $8.50 stimulus check, screw the proles in union industries with card-check, subsidize compact fluorescent light bulbs to Save The Planet, whatever), and that this is a quite reasonable price to pay to spare one's self from the suspense of wondering which foundation of the Republic President McCain might feel the urge to reform, muttering my friends, we have a lot of work to do as he loosens bolts Madison himself last touched.

It's funny, but Adelman exactly fits a pattern I've been noticing. Excluding low-information voters, who largely vote on emotional or tribal bases, the people that I am seeing supporting Obama largely hope that he doesn't mean what he says, while those that oppose him largely believe he means exactly what he says.

I'm seeing a similar pattern among the "conservative elites". Given a choice of conservative or elite, they will choose elite. In other words, contra Wm. F. Buckley, they would rather be governed by the Harvard (or Yale) faculty than the first 500 names in the Boston (or Wasilla) phonebook.