« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »

June 30, 2006

Indiana University Alumni Trustee Election Day

According to an email from the IU Alumni Association:

On June 30, IU alumni elected Philip N. Eskew Jr., BA'63 [sic], MD'70, to the university's board of trustees for a three-year term. Eskew tallied 9,209 votes to beat runner-up Steve Sanders, BA'84, JD'05, and five other candidates.

I haven't been able to find anything online yet, and I'll post more as details emerge.

Even though ITA pick Steve Sanders fell short, Dr. Eskew was a close second in my estimation. You can see his profile here. Money quote, "The leadership void of the entire university is substantial."

And best of all, an incumbent Trustee was de-elected!

Update: News release here.

Here are the vote totals:

• Philip N. Eskew Jr., Carmel, Ind -- 9,209
• Steve Sanders, Chicago, Ill. -- 6,555
• Cora Smith Breckenridge, Elkhart, Ind. -- 5,503
• Steven Lloyd Kellam, Carmel, Ind. -- 4,203
• Chris Sautter, Washington, D.C. -- 3,559
• Trina S. (Ringenberg) Miller, Granger, Ind. -- 1,611
• Carolyn Louise Jordan, Gary, Ind. -- 1,010

The vote turnout was especially low this year, 31,650, which is approximately 6.6% of all alumni ballots.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 05:02 PM | Comments (1)

June 28, 2006

Gerrymandering

The Supreme Court ruled today on a significant election law issue in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. The case addressed two issues but the most significant finding, in my mind, is that a mid-decade drawn congressional map is valid.

Neither the Constitution nor Congress has stated any explicit prohibition of mid-decade redistricting to change districts drawn earlier in conformance with a decennial census.

This ruling could spur other mid-decade redistricting in other states and make things interesting everywhere (I think the interest in state politics shot up a bit today across America). But the Court remained split on whether all partisan gerrymander claims are beyond judicial review. Here's Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's summation in the pluraity decision:

In sum, we disagree with appellants' view that a legislature's decision to override a valid, court-drawn plan mid-decade is sufficiently suspect to give shape to a reliable standard for identifying unconstiutitonal political gerrymanders. We conclude that appellants have established no legally impermissible use of political classifications. For this reason, they state no claim on which relief may be granted for their statewide challenge.

Update: Rick Pildes of NYU Law School has thoughts here, and election law god Rick hason has his thoughts here.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:25 PM | Comments (5)

Darby Conley -- Genius

The praises of Get Fuzzy have been sung on ITA before, but yesterday's strip was especially funny. Anyone who has spent much time in online debates should appreciate it.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:45 AM | Comments (2)

June 27, 2006

Objectivity or Disclosure?

Jane Galt has been having an interesting back-and-forth with Henry Farrell of Crooked Timber. It all started when Farrell wrote a post accusing The Economist (Galt's employer) of partisan hackery in an article about illegal immigrants. Jane responded here. Farrell then responded to Galt. Galt's replies here and here. Then Farrell responds again.

It was a point in Galt's latest reply that caught my interest. In comparing an Economist article on the minimum wage to one by the Christian Science Monitor, Jane says:

The Economist piece states its opinions, rather than steering the reader towards them...

In fact, I'm against "slant" journalism--I think it's dishonest, and our nation's newspapers would be in much better condition if journalists would just come out and state the opinion they have formed from the various facts that they present, rather than putting on a false face of objectivity. But I don't think it's illegitimate . . . just unnecessary.

I think this is a good idea. I have read many newspaper articles that put on a show of quoting both sides of an issue but carefully arrange the facts to favor one side. The writer may never come out and state her own opinion, but instead lets the people she quotes say it for her.

When you read a newspaper in the UK, you know its ideological stance. The Daily Telegraph is conservative, while the Guardian is liberal. Rather than trying to ferret out bias, you generally know where the writer stands on the issue. The facts, of course, are still expected to be thoroughly checked. I think it would be very refreshing to have that sort of transparency in American news reporting.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 10:20 PM | Comments (12)

Hilarious

Following reports that Rush Limbaugh was carrying Viagra not in his name - illegal in its own right, but particularly given Rush's plea agreement - Matt Drudge reports he opened today's show with this:

How did Bob Dole's luggage get on my airplane? I told my doctor I was worried about the next election.

The perfect response, in my opinion.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 12:41 PM | Comments (27)

June 26, 2006

A Sense of Perspective

I met a fair number of students of non-profit management while I was in graduate school, who rightly noted that their chosen field filled needs where both the private and public sectors could or would not. Warren Buffet has rather dramatically stepped in to that gap.

But is that gap unnecessarily large? From Greg Mankiw's blog:

In other words, success in the Doha round of international trade talks would give the world more every year than what Buffett can give once after a lifetime of being the world's most successful investor.

Sadly, the Doha negotiations are scheduled to collapse. (via Jane Galt)

Posted by Zach Wendling at 07:48 PM | Comments (2)

Sales tax for government services?

In Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, a showdown is brewing between county commissioners and the state government. As in many states, county government offices are required to provide copies of public record documents (such as deeds, court filings, etc.), and may charge a fee (but not make a profit) for this service.

The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, however, has announced that beginning next year county offices will be required to collect state sales tax for these services. The state associations for recorders of deeds and for treasurers have officially opposed this move, and now the Montgomery County commissioners have sent the Department of Revenue a letter informing them they have no intention of collecting the tax:

"The whole premise of this is that they are comparing us to Kinko's which, when you go, you bring something in to copy," said [Recorder of Deeds Nancy] Becker. "When you come into a county office, it is the only place where something is filed."

Probably one of the most annoying aspects of this requirement would be the need for county offices to make change down to pennies. A copy of a document which formerly cost $6 may now cost $6.36. And as the article notes, it seems redundant to charge tax on a government service.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:15 PM | Comments (2)

June 25, 2006

A Favourite ITA Topic

George McGovern, WalMart apologist.

Heh.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:40 PM | Comments (6)

A, Like, Really Good Idea

From the New York Post:

A Wall Street lawyer gave new meaning to the term "futures market" when he tried to auction his future Social Security checks - money did doesn't now have - on eBay for $200,000 so he could use the cash for a down payment on a Manhattan apartment.

"I've put a lot of money into the Social Security system, so why can't I sell it to someone else?" mused Thaddeus Wojcik.

(via Marginal Revolutions)

Update: The title of this post is meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as the auction of one's OASDI benefits on eBay is fairly absurd . . . and amusing (as Prof Cowen wrote, "File that under 'Department of HA!'"). It would have been even more amusing had eBay not halted the auction.

And that's a pity, because I'm curious what the Present Value of a random OASDI annuity would be. Of course, this is hard to tell, as one would have to make a number of fairly uncertain assumptions:

• The expected value of Wojcik's age of expiration (prudent investors would want some relevent information about his bad habits and family history in addition to his triathleticism)
• The likely rate of inflation over this period
• The expected "rate of return" on OASDI retirement
• The capriciousness of future Congresses
• Future adjustments to the retirement age and/or benefits
• And depending on one's skepticism of OASDI, the perpetuation of the system

Calculating the Present Value of a delayed annuity under these circumstances is probably beyond the grasp of most eStevedores, and I'm pretty skeptical of Wojcik's numbers. Still, it would be interesting to see whether the Wisdom of Crowds could prevail at auction.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 08:37 PM | Comments (14)

Herbert's Exit Strategy?

From Inside INdiana Business:

For the first time, Indiana University President Adam Herbert has stated publicly that he could leave the president's office before the end of his contract, perhaps as early as next July.

Since Herbert told the IU Board of Trustees in January that he would retire at the end of his contract in July 2008, there has been speculation about his future.

In an interview with Gerry Dick, Herbert says he is committed to doing what's best for the university, which could mean leaving the president's office early if circumstances dictate.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 12:24 PM | Comments (0)

June 23, 2006

Customer Disservice

AOL doesn't like it when you want to cancel your account. They really, really don't like it because they're sure it's in your best interest to keep paying them for their service. In fact, they just might want to talk to your parents before they'll cancel your account. I'm not kidding. In case you haven't seen it, a guy named Vincent Ferrari recorded his unbelievable conversation with an AOL representative and posted it online. It's hilarious and outrageous at the same time.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 05:32 PM | Comments (10)

Wetlands still muddy, Bush administration sides with environmentalists

In a scant-reported 5-4 decision this week, the Supreme court upheld the government's power to block development on wetlands, but established a test that there must be a "signficant nexus" (i.e. some sort of physical connection) between the wetland and a navigable waterway in order for the wetland to be regulated.

Most people have probably heard stories about someone who wanted to develop a piece of land, but were kept from doing so because a marshy area was ruled to be a "wetland." Often there's no wildlife living in the area other than a handful of frogs. It is certainly an area of environmental regulation where some rationality needs to be established. A prospective buyer of a piece of land should be able to know with certainty what sort of development he would be able to construct on the land. And "wetlands preservation" shouldn't be used as a fig leaf to block development unless real ecological impact is at stake.

An interesting aspect of this case is that the Bush administration sided with environmentalists and against developers. This may come as a surprise to those who believe Republicans consistently favor business interests over the environment.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 12:58 PM | Comments (1)

June 22, 2006

The Great What If

The NBA finals concluded this week, with the Miami Heat winning the title 4-2 over the Dallas Mavericks in a series that captured no one's imagination. But this week was big for the NBA for another reason: the 20th anniversary of the death of Len Bias on June 19th.

As a University of Maryland graduate and one-time Celtics fan (I've all but given up on the NBA the past couple years), Len Bias has always resonated with me. He represents the greatest "what if" in NBA history. The Boston Celtics, who had been to four finals and won three championships in the previous five years, found themselves with the #2 pick in the draft and selected Bias, the dominating big man with superstar written all over him. In 1986, the Bird-McHale-Parish Celtics were at the top of their game, and the addition of the young stud from Maryland seemed to indicate that Boston would remain the class of the NBA for the rest of the decade and perhaps beyond. As Bird, McHale, and Parish got older, Bias seemed to be the ideal candidate to take up more resonsibility and extend the dynasty's half life indefinitely (kind of like Dwayne Wade with Shaq). Sadly, just a day later, Bias was dead of a cocaine overdose and the dream was gone. The Celtics limped to a finals loss to the Lakers in 1987 and haven't been back since.

Twenty years on, Bias remains the NBA's greatest tragedy, greatest what if, and greatest reminder of the dangers of drugs and high-stakes living. It amazes me sometimes the number of professional athletes who still get themselves in trouble with drug and alcohol abuse. I have difficulty fathoming how anyone born in the 70s or 80s (the bulk of today's pro athletes) can't look at the example of Bias and shed a tear over a dream cut short.

Posted by David Darlington at 12:39 PM | Comments (0)

Kentucky: 'Where Education Pays'

Political bloggers "have joined pornographers, casinos and hate groups" on Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher's (R) "list of Web sites that state employees are blocked from visiting," reports the Louisville Courier-Journal. The Lexington Herald Leader adds, "The ban sent the political sector of the cyber world into a tizzy, attracting attention from national blogs, some of which were added throughout the day to the list of sites state workers couldn't access." We have no word yet on the fate of ITA.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:11 AM | Comments (3)

Miscellaneous

Fox News' top story at the moment reads, "Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq." Various Congressmen read a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, which reads, "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent." The weapons, though, were manufactured before 1991 and not in useable condition, thus they are not proof of an ongoing WMD program. However the report, much of which was already known, calls into question the claims of Saddam and international weapons inspectors.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 01:05 AM | Comments (29)

June 19, 2006

Fatherhood, Faith, and the Indianapolis Colts

I know I'm a day late, but this ESPN article on Tony Dungy makes a nice Father's Day read. The Colts' coach, as you'll recall, lost his 18-year-old son to suicide last December.

Posted by David Darlington at 12:43 PM | Comments (2)

June 17, 2006

The Deadweight Loss of Weddings

Now, I know there are about a thousand-and-one jokes that could come out of a title like the one above, but I wanted to return breifly to a topic I explored in November: the deadweight loss of gift-giving.

We're in the middle of June, a matrimonial month (I'm going to a wedding this evening), and an appropriate time to look at the inefficiency of non-market transactions. I'm pleased to say that there's been a lot of progress on this front, as gift registries have become nearly universal, ensuring that happy couples are mostly going to receive things they value. But I'm still wonder whether it couldn't be better, as couples may be padding their registries just so all the guests will have a crack at getting something on the list. When I narrow down my possible purchases to two or three items, how do I know which of them the couple would like best? Here, Amazon is way ahead of the competition, and I wonder when other retailers will follow suit.

But gifts are perhaps the most practical wedding tradition, as they help stock the new household. There's plenty left to deride, like dresses that cost thousands of dollars and are only worn once. Scott Adams inspects a novel irrationality:

My fiancee Shelly and I are in the process of picking "favors" for our wedding. Allow me to explain the term "favors" to those of you who are foreigners, hillbillies, ignoramuses, or me one week ago. A "favor" is a small gift for the wedding attendees. It's an allegedly useful item that's usually made of glass or metal. (Plastic and cardboard don't seem weddingish enough.) There might be a ribbon or a candle involved and it probably has some inscription to commemorate the event.

"Favor" is one of those great ironic names. To my way of thinking, you're not doing a guy a favor by giving him something he doesn't want and can't throw away. That's more like a penalty . . .

I tried to deduce the purpose of wedding favors but came up dry. Obviously the gifts will not be chosen based on any need that is shared by the attendees. It is unlikely that anyone will get watery-eyed and say, "My life was a tragedy until I got this one champagne glass with someone else's name on it. It completes me!"

I hope we can nip this in the bud, as wedding favors may become the biggest source of deadweight loss in the whole ordeal. I'm not sure what would compel a couple to take on this burden; the guests are already going to get free food, entertainment, and, if the newlyweds are Roman Catholic, an open bar. When I posted on this before, several commenters took umbrage at my suggestion that humans don't always act rationally. I wonder if they have any hypotheses about wedding favors.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 03:38 PM | Comments (11)

Bad Chemistry

As the Cold War got underway, the US quickly realized that without inspiring the Youth of America to pursue the sciences, we'd fall dangerously behind our Soviet enemies.

But as the Global War on Terror drags on, the government seems hell-bent on discourgaing our youngsters from exploring an interest in science. This Wired article details the federal crackdown on home chemistry sets, which are joining model rockets on the Homeland Security blacklist.

Then again, this is the Internet age, and viral videos may be the most potent medium for young people. Let's hope they enjoys these.

Posted by Zach Wendling at 03:18 PM | Comments (3)

June 16, 2006

Study of beauty in politics

Several studies document that beauty plays a role in the labor market: beautiful people earn more than others. Three economists are conducting a study to see whether there is a beauty premium in politics as well, such that beautiful candidates have greater electoral success. You're invited to participate in the study, run by Associate Professor Niclas Berggren (The Ratio Institute), Dr. Henrik Jordahl (Uppsala University) and Professor Panu Poutvaara (University of Helsinki). Click here to take part. They've asked that you write "AGORA" when asked about where you heard about the study.

Update: The link has been fixed.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 05:23 PM | Comments (4)

June 13, 2006

'Will Same-Sex Marriage Collide With Religious Liberty?'

The New York Times takes a look with thoughtful responses from a number of scholars. (Hat tip: Eugene Volokh). And while I'm thinking of Prof. Volokh, I love the idea that one of America's leading experts on constitutional law was born in the USSR.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:14 PM | Comments (42)

The 10 Greatest

Media Orchard has created its list of the "The 10 Greatest Countries in the History of the World." I think it's a good one, but I would've included Israel.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:22 PM | Comments (6)

USA's World Cup presence

America may not be a leader in the world's game of soccer, but there's a certain irony that our companies are still front and center at the World Cup. McDonald's as the main food vendor and Budweiser the official beer? Classic.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:18 PM | Comments (6)

June 12, 2006

What health care system do Americans really want?

Jane Galt wrote an interesting post on Friday commenting in part on a recent poll showing 62 percent of Americans favoring universal health care over the current American health care system. Jane points out that the devil is in the details:

In theory, theory is the same as practice. In practice, it isn't. Voters, and consumers, often like things in abstract that they hate in particular. ClintonCare was very popular right up to the point when people started hearing about the details.

In fact, the same poll shows that 82 percent of insured Americans are happy with their health care, and among those who have experienced a serious or chronic medical issue in their family in the past year, a whopping 91 percent are satisfied with their care.

This reminds me of a phenomenon observed during the economic downturn of c. 2001-2004--when people were asked to rate their own financial situation, the numbers were much more positive than when they were asked to rate the economy in general. Could this be a result of negative media coverage skewing people's perspective?

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:19 AM | Comments (15)

June 10, 2006

Commencement Bingo

Perhaps this is a bit too late in the season, but I was inspired by my youngest brother's recent graduation from High School:

Posted by Zach Wendling at 11:29 AM | Comments (5)

June 09, 2006

Gardasil: The Coming Battle

Yesterday, the FDA approved Gardasil--a vaccine for four strains of HPV which cause genital warts and cervical cancer--for 9- to 26-year-old girls and women. For obvious reasons, Merck is marketing Gardasil as a "cancer vaccine," not an STD vaccine. Nevertheless, one only has to look at the patient population for which Gardasil was approved to recognize the seeds of a major national controversy: nine to twenty-six-year-old girls and women.

The medical reason for immunizing a 9-year-old girl against an STD is that the vaccine is most effective when administered before the onset of sexual activity. (I am unsure whether this means that a 4-5 year lead time is necessary or that the medical community is anticipating some very unsettling situations.) Not only will parents face the choice of whether to immunize their daughters against an STD, but private religious insurers will have to decide whether to cover the cost of the vaccine (anticipated to be $360 per 3-dose regimen). You can expect there will be lawsuits over that.

Most controversial, however, will be the decision by school districts whether to make Gardasil mandatory for attending school. As opposed to contagious diseases like measles, HPV infection is easily avoided by not engaging in sexual activity. Vaccines are among the safest medical products available, but they still carry a small amount of risk. Why force a student to accept that risk to protect against an entirely avoidable disease?

(In the interest of full disclosure, I am employed by Merck.)

Posted by Eric Seymour at 08:58 AM | Comments (24)

June 08, 2006

Jury duty and juror rights

Radley Balko is an advocate of jury nullification--the action by a jury to refuse to convict a person for breaking a law (even when it is clear that they did in fact violate the law) if the jury decides a conviction would be somehow unjust.

Because I realize that enforcing the letter of a law can sometimes result in unjust outcomes, I agree with Balko that jury nullification is (at least in some cases) just as much a duty for a juror as faithfully sorting out the facts presented during the trial. Jury nullification may in some cases be a necessary check on abuses by an overzealous prosecutor.

Today, Balko linked to Julian Sanchez' personal account of going through the jury selection process for a drug trial. Sanchez is apparently in favor of complete drug legalization because he states in his blog he would not vote to convict a man accused of "possession with intent to distribute" narcotics, even if the prosecution had "videotape of him prancing around Times Square flinging pills to the crowd from a huge sack."

During jury selection, Sanchez was essentially asked if he could render a guilty verdict if the evidence warranted it. He answered honestly "no," and was dismissed. He could have chosen to lie to get on the jury and refuse to convict because he believes drug laws are unjust, but that would mean committing perjury. Balko characterizes this as "hold[ing] the threat of perjury over potential nullifiers."

I disagree with Balko here. If Sanchez disagrees so completely with drug laws that he would not convict a person of a drug offense under any circumstance, he does not belong on a jury for a drug trial. The prosecutor and judge absolutely have the right to exclude a juror who has decided how he will vote before the trial has even begun. Imagine what could happen if a terrorist sympathizer were allowed on a jury to vote to acquit a clearly guilty mastermind of a bombing. Or to use an example that is very similar but less caught up in curent events, should someone who is so anti-abortion that he believes shooting an abortion doctor is justifiable be allowed on the murder trial of someone who did so?

Sanchez was dismissed from the jury, and he can go on lobbying his representatives and writing to change people's minds on drug laws. When it comes to the "war" on drugs, our justice system gives you the option to be a conscientious objector, but not a saboteur.

Posted by Eric Seymour at 06:40 PM | Comments (4)

Surprisingly, Blogger is Nowhere to be Found

PC World has published a list of the top 25 worst tech products of all time. While that company from Redmond is well represented, it failed to take the top spot.

Ok, fess up time. Who out there bought Microsoft Bob?

Posted by David Darlington at 12:15 AM | Comments (5)

June 06, 2006

AP's Erin Texeira Strikes Again

One of the top stories yesterday, at least in terms of distribution, is Erin Texeira's Associated Press article titled, "Immigration Debate Stirs Racial Tensions." The story carries an ominous warning that public discussions about immigration policy are causing a rise in racism.

A few of the cases cited are dispicable, even if it's not racially motivated, but based upon a handful of such anecdotal stories Texeira wants us to believe racism is rapidly gaining ground. Yet no where in the article does Texeira offer any objective evidence, such as statistics or studies, that would lead us to believe it's true.

Texeira is a member of the "narrative journalism movement" which seeks to report through stories and narratives. Narrative is acceptable and can be quite powerful, but if we're going to label them "news," such stories must still be supported by objective facts.

Texeira's foundationless reporting might be excusable if she didn't already have a history of it. In a story for the Los Angeles Times Texeira wrote that Filipinos were disproportionately favored for government positions and contracts in Carson, California.

But like the story above on alleged Asian harrassment, Texeira relied on a narrative technique that lacked objective evidence. Instead of concrete quotes and statistics Texeira hides behind words like "critics," "observers," "analysts" and "sources" without mentioning them by name. As one concerned reader wrote, Texeira's article is "shoddy journalism at best and rank racism at worst."

A brief search reveals that a signficant number of her stories are narratives on racial tension. For such a controversial, sensitive topic, one would hope the copy editors demand more substance from reporters. Erin once wrote that she is "of brown skin" and her racial identity is "complicated." But her own racial confusion should not manifest itself in confusing "news articles" that are simply powerful narratives.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 09:17 AM | Comments (11)

June 05, 2006

What Happened to 'Scalito'?

Prior to his nomination to the United States Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito was sometimes referred to by the press as "Scalito" for "views resembling those of conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia." But as numerous commenters argued at the time, such a portrayal of Justice Alito is lazy and ignorant. Alito and Scalia are seperate individuals with a deep a nuanced jurisprudence. (See Ed Brayton's post here.)

This has become apparent already after Justice Alito's second opinion, handed down today in Zedner v. United States. Prof. Orin Kerr provides the full analysis of Scalia's concurring opinion which highlights his refusal to join in the main opinion because of its partial reliance on legislative history. This strong "textualism" defines Scalia's jurisprudence and it's noteworthy that Alito was willing to go outside of the text for interpretation.

I'd be remiss if I didn't also point out that frequent commenters JohnS and others were dead wrong in responses to this post when they tried to claim Justice Alito would be filibustered. He wasn't, obviously, and was confirmed by the Senate.

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:23 PM | Comments (0)

Ugh

It's hard to take this AFP (Agence France-Presse, and yes that's French) story seriously when it references the "Book of Revelations." No such book exists, at least in the Christian Bible. It's "Book of Revelation," and has no "s".

Posted by Joshua Claybourn at 08:20 PM | Comments (2)

June 02, 2006

Four More Years?

Here's a great question from Red State: If George W. Bush were eligible for a third term, would you support him in the 2008 primary? Mark Byron answers with qualified yes, citing Bush's experience, relative youth, and general weakness in the potential GOP alternatives.

I'm more inclined to answer in the negative myself. The tremendous heat the administration has been under is clearly taking its toll, and a fresh face might be exactly what the country (and the party) needs. I don't see the administration's approval rating ever getting back over 50 percent barring an unprecedented shift in media coverage and perhaps a near total administrative housecleaning (Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.). Fairly or unfairly, several administration figures are carrying public relations baggage, which is quite difficult to get rid of (liberal or conservative, the media loves to peg people with labels and hates changing them). However, I do share Mark's concern about the relative unattractiveness of the more well known GOP alternatives. If the party were to dump the president in a hypothetical third time around, to whom would the GOP go?

Posted by David Darlington at 08:38 PM | Comments (10)