Florida Votes

Mitt Romney clearly won the Republican primary in Florida, as predicted. He received more votes than Gingrich and Santorum combined.

Newt Gingrich came in a respectable second. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, who didn't campaign there much came in a distant third and fourth, respectively. From Google, the final vote percentages were as follows:

46.4% Romney

31.9% Gingrich

13.4% Santorum

7.00% Paul

1.30% Other

I'm not certain how Santorum justifies continuing in the race. He begins to look silly. Whose money is he spending?

Paul is less a candidate than the advocate for a set of libertarian beliefs that include isolationism and legalization of recreational drugs as well as radically smaller government.

Nevada is next and, as a neighbor of Utah, it has a substantial Mormon population - Mitt should do well there.

Brutal Wisdom

Victor Davis Hanson, writing in City Journal about our nation's history:

The United States was born through war, reunited by war, and saved from destruction by war. No future generation, however comfortable and affluent, should escape that terrible knowledge.

Quote of the Day

Sir Basil H. Liddell Hart, British military historian, on the purpose of war:

War is always a matter of doing evil in the hope that good may come of it.

My source for the quote is an article in City Journal by Victor Davis Hanson.

Nobody Is Electable

Sean Trende, who writes for RealClearPolitics, with tongue firmly in cheek declares Romney, Gingrich, and Obama "unelectable." That said, he observes that one of them will nevertheless be elected.

What he has to say about reelection campaigns being referenda upon the incumbents is convincing. As Trende notes, since the 2008 election Obama has never been able to run up high approval numbers.

Spam a Diabetes Risk?

Reuters reports via Yahoo News that Native Americans eating processed, canned meat aka "Spam" had an increased risk of developing diabetes. They summarize a study originally reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

If someone wants to replicate this study, they could do so on the Pacific islands where Spam is very popular. I know it to be popular in Hawaii and on Guam, and I suppose it is likewise popular in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, etc.

In the mid-1980s the DrsC were spending a year on Guam when, coincidentally, the Spam cannery in Minnesota went on strike. The Pacific Daily News, Guam's newspaper, headlined the strike. Within a day the grocery stores were sold out of Spam - truly the shelves were bare.

On Guam Spam is known as "typhoon food," food that keeps for years, doesn't get infested by bugs, and can be eaten cold right out of the can when a typhoon tears up the electric lines and distribution systems.

Who knows? Spam may be related to diabetes there, too.

An Historical Precedent

Walter Williams writes of the Obama presidency:

(It) represents the first time in our history that a person could have been elected to that office who had long-standing close associations with people who hate our nation.

Normally I don't find quibbles with Dr. Williams, but in this case I do. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's wife Eleanor certainly "had long-standing close associations with people who hate our nation." Her associations with known Stalinists are documented. Williams' article is for Creators' Syndicate.

Fox Out in Front, Yet Again

Fox News celebrates 10 years as the number one cable news net, story here on Yahoo News. What isn't clear is why anyone should be surprised by this.

At least half of this nation's people are politically conservative. News on the commercial broadcast networks, PBS, NPR plus the other cable news channels are all liberal; among them they divide the liberal audience.

Fox News has most of the conservative audience to itself. Do the math. Be surprised if Fox is anything but number one.

The same logic applies to The Wall Street Journal being number one among newspapers with a national circulation, which it is.

We Told You So

We've been telling you that Newt is the better showman, Mitt is the better manager. Here is a Miami Herald article whose authors are puzzled by Newt's big crowds vs. Mitt's smaller groups, while at the same time polls say more will vote for Mitt than for Newt.

I'm not puzzled, that makes perfect sense to me. More Floridians go see Newt because he is more fun to listen to. That's what I'd do too, listen to Newt and vote for Mitt (probably).

If we elect Mitt, who the polls tell us has a better chance of defeating Obama, we will spend the next four years listening to boring speeches. The important thing is defeating Obama and it doesn't seem that Newt can do the job.

Laffer: Newt Better on Taxes

Arthur Laffer is creator of the famous Laffer Curve which shows lower tax rates can bring in higher revenues. Writing for The Wall Street Journal, Laffer says Newt is better on taxes than Mitt:

When it comes to the election's core issue—restoring a healthy economy—the key is a good tax plan and the ability to implement it. Mr. Gingrich has a significantly better plan than does Mr. Romney, and he has twice before been instrumental in implementing a successful tax plan on a national level—once when he served in Congress as a Reagan supporter in the 1980s and again when he was President Clinton's partner as speaker of the House of Representatives in the 1990s. During both of these periods the economy prospered incredibly—in good part because of Mr. Gingrich.

If that doesn't constitute an endorsement, it comes mighty close.

Travel Blogging

Yesterday the other DrC and I went out for a Sunday afternoon scenic drive. We saw some of coastal California that looks as it did a hundred years ago, in the period just before World War I. If you're finding that hard to believe, I'll tell you where to see for yourself.

Take US 101 north of Santa Barbara along the coast maybe as much as 20 miles. Where 101 turns inland is called Gaviota Pass (Gaviota is sea gull in Spanish).

Go inland a very few miles, maybe 3, to where California Highway 1 separates and is marked as the road to Lompoc (pronounced by locals as lom-poke). Lompoc is famous in recent years for its minimum security Federal prison where white collar criminals are sent. If you reach Lompoc you've gone too far on Hwy 1.

Once you've left 101 and are headed northwest on Hwy 1 everything looks like old California - of the pre WW II era. After a few miles on Hwy 1 take a left turn on well-marked Jalama Road (Spanish pronounciation Ha-la-ma).

Take Jalama Rd. and slowly drive the several miles to Jalama Beach County Park. What you see along Jalama Rd. will look like pre-WW I California. A few small farms, cattle, and a whole lot of untouched coastal California rolling hills, being used as grazing land with cattle dotted among the coastal oaks and chapparal.

If you are a beach person, pay your day use fee and go into the park. There is a store and burger place there, rest rooms, and a nice beach. For pretty pictures see the other DrC's blog at cruztalking.blogspot.com.

If sand in your shorts isn't a thrill, turn around and slowly drive back to Hwy 1. You will have seen several miles of almost entirely untouched California coastal hills, much of it looking the way Richard Henry Dana saw it in the 1830s (except for the road you're driving on).

This drive will convince you why Ronald Reagan bought a ranch in this region. If you still have time and energy, continue northwest on Hwy 1 to Hwy 246, turn right, and drive a dozen or so miles to Solvang, a faux Danish community with architectural charm, many bakeries, and a really nice street fair on Wednesday afternoons (we recommend the apple pies sold there by the Solvang Pie Co.)

If it is supper time, the traditional thing to do here is go back on 246 to Buellton and eat split pea soup at Andersons, a California landmark. And the El Rancho market in Santa Ynez is worth a visit, very up-scale and you can easily assemble a meal from their deli.

U.K. Wants It Both Ways

The United Kingdom refused to sign onto a treaty binding 25 of the 27 members of the EU to closer centralized fiscal controls. The Czech Republic also refused to agree.

At the same time, the U.K. wants to have continuing access to the common market and other positive aspects of the European Union. See the BBC News Europe article for details.

Consumption Si, Inequality No

Professor James Q. Wilson, one of the nation's most insightful political scientists, writes about income inequality and whether we should worry about it as the President insists we should. Wilson concludes we should not:

The country has become more prosperous, as measured not by income but by consumption: In constant dollars, consumption by people in the lowest quintile rose by more than 40 percent over the past four decades.

Income as measured by the federal government is not a reliable indicator of well-being, but consumption is. Though poverty is a problem, it has become less of one.

Wilson's Washington Post article is very much worth your time. Wilson's thoughts relate to what we said Saturday about Reagan's views.

More on Polarization

On Saturday we wrote about the polarizing effects of President Obama, citing a Gallup poll. Here is a Washington Post column, based on the same data, which makes the point even more clearly:

For 2011, Obama’s third year in office, an average of 80 percent of Democrats approved of the job he was doing in Gallup tracking polls, as compared to 12 percent of Republicans who felt the same way. That’s a 68-point partisan gap, the highest for any president’s third year in office — ever. (The previous high was George W. Bush in 2007, when he had a 59 percent difference in job approval ratings.)

In 2010, the partisan gap between how Obama was viewed by Democrats versus Republicans stood at 68 percent; in 2009, it was 65 percent. Both were the highest marks ever for a president’s second and first years in office, respectively.

The column's authors, Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake, conclude:

We are simply living in an era in which Democrats dislike a Republican president (and Republicans dislike a Democratic one) even before the commander in chief has taken a single official action.

With Red vs. Blue states and a very polarized electorate, it feels like we are slowly edging toward another civil war.

What Works, What Doesn't

The Washington Post reports results of research done under the aegis of the National Bureau of Economic Research concerning what does and doesn't work in improving student outcomes. It turns out that class size, per pupil expenditure, number of teachers with credentials and/or graduate degrees are not important predictors of student accomplishment. However:

An index of five policies suggested by over forty years of qualitative research — frequent teacher feedback, the use of data to guide instruction, high-dosage tutoring, increased instructional time, and high expectations — explains approximately 50 percent of the variation in school effectiveness.

There's a good chance most of the rest of the variation is related to factors over which the school has zero control: student socioeconomic status, family stability, parental drug abuse, etc.

The Newt Magic

Michael Warren, writing for The Weekly Standard, follows Newt around Florida and shows why Speaker Gingrich appeals to the Republican base. Newt is funny, quick on his feet, and deals well with hecklers; he's just a better showman than Mitt or the others.

Gingrich = Goldwater?

Pollster Peter Hart, who with Bill McInturff does the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, says "Gingrich is Goldwater." By this he means that Gingrich would lose big and drag down much of the rest of the ticket. A National Review Online article by Jim Geraghty is the source.

There could be truth to this claim. Gingrich pronouncements please the Republican base but may antagonize independents and energize both them and Democrats to vote in opposition. At least that is the theory.

Wisdom of the Gipper

President Ronald Reagan, speaking in 1982, and quoted in 2011 by Rep. Paul Ryan:

Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes – one rich, one poor – both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of social and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?

Our aim is to grow the economy and thus improve the lot of everyone, by increasing the size of the pie rather than arguing over who gets how big a slice. We've been successful; our "poor" live better than the middle class of most nations.

Quote of the Day

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, giving the GOP response to the State of the Union speech:

The president did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in America tonight, but he was elected on a promise to fix them, and he cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse.

No kidding. My source for this is an article in The American.

Gallup: Obama Polarizing

Most Democrats like President Obama, most Republicans don't. This causes the Gallup polling organization to report:

Obama's ratings have been consistently among the most polarized for a president in the last 60 years.

On the other hand, they also note:

That may not be a reflection on Obama himself as much as on the current political environment in the United States, because Obama's immediate predecessor, Bush, had similarly polarized ratings, particularly in the latter stages of his presidency.

The cause may be an increase in party ideological consistency.

Welcome Back, Kotkin

Demographer Joel Kotkin has a Forbes article concerning the strength of the Anglosphere. The Anglosphere is, of course, the collection of countries which share language and culture with Britain.

Kotkin begins with why the U.K. doesn't much need the European Union, continues with a discussion of just how dominant the Anglosphere is, and concludes with a lamentation of how President Obama fails to understand, or perhaps rejects, the Anglosphere's importance.