WaPo’s Little Train Wreck That Couldn’t

February 27, 2012

Via Nate Silver at the New York Times, one of the best polling analysts in my view.

Since we ran the Michigan numbers early Monday morning, three new polls are out that make the state look more like a true toss-up and less like one that favors Mr. Romney.

Meanwhile, I find myself wondering if the Washington Post's health care package comes with a mental health component. Pssst, … it's called projection.

Santorum is losing it

By Jennifer Rubin

Is Rick Santorum gloomy? Or “one angry dude”? If you look at the past few days, his increasingly erratic performance reminds you of a basketball team trailing by single digits at the beginning of the fourth quarter. Things then go from bad to worse. The squad gets rattled, arguing with the ref and making silly fouls. Instead of going for the percentage shots, the team throws up a series of off-balance three-point shots that miss wildly. Soon what was a close game isn’t, and what looked a competitive team now looks frazzled.

AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
  1. Ricky says:

    Romney must have promised her position of Pres Secretary in his admin.
    In case you have not seen this about the Rovester:

  2. Ricky says:

    If you have family and/or friends in MI, please contact them and convince them to vote for Santorum. This is our chance to do real damage to the Myth.
    Newties go do your thing for the team. The Santies will hopefully return in kind when the time comes.

  3. Hope Change says:

    The fight over Santorum or Romney is a waste of time when we have a candidate as ready, experienced, balanced and prepared as NEwt.
    Newt is the man with the plan. Newt is the man for our times.
    Simply outstanding speech by Newt at the Rock Springs Baptist Church in Milner, Georgia Church
    Rock Springs Baptist Church- Milner, Georgia -19:18
    Our children and grandchildren will live with the consequences of our votes this year. Let’s live up to the life of freedom we have had because of the sacrifices of others who came before us. Go NEWt!

  4. gary gulrud says:

    I agree on the Silver assessment. His analysis of the Republican delegate intricacies of yesterday is the best I’ve seen by light-years.
    If McBain can’t carry in a first ballot victory among bound candidates it will be a long convention. Just 70% of the total are bound by Silver’s analysis and we’ve challenges brewing against FL, AZ and VA.
    On a positive note, Ogabe has nowhere to go but down.

  5. dinglewoodnorwdoodbill says:

    Newt cannot win a general election, his negatives are too high. He comes across as too angry, that turns off moderates and indies in such a match.
    Worse, Newt just exposed himself today as being unfit for anyone’s vote. He attacked Santorum today, helped Romney, with his Drudge labor hit.
    Even if you are a Newt fan NOT giving up and backing the only logical not-Romney (Santorum) to get the most overall conservative possible, you vote for SANTORUM tomorrow in MI.
    Because it dominoes and the press spins this as a big turn around for Romney if he sweeps tomorrow.
    You want this to go on to weaken Mitt, giving another CHANCE for Newt to come back.
    If I backed Newt, I’d vote Rick in MI or AZ, to HELP GINGRICH since he will not win there, to muck it up heading into Super Tuesday for a fresh shot.
    Yet Newt attacked Santy today, why?
    Not in his self interest unless *HE* has taken a VP slot deal from Mittens!

  6. Ragspierre says:

    “Newt cannot win a general election, his negatives are too high. He comes across as too angry, that turns off moderates and indies in such a match.”
    You keep chanting that. It is a self-fulfilling piece of BS. Learn some history, and you’ll see Reagan was polling MUCH worse against Carter at about this point.
    Start DE-crap-a-fying Newt’s image by learning the facts and propagating them.
    Sante is NOT someone I want to have to vote for, and am actively AGAINST at this point.
    As to Jenn… I guess she was trying her hand at political fiction. All I can imagine…

  7. Ricky says:

    “He comes across as too angry, that turns off moderates and indies in such a match.”
    Santies should really not go there! Not with Santy coming of as snotty and such at times…
    They all attack each other. Santorum seems more like the spiteful kind of person that will join forces with Romney just to spite Newt, just sayin’.
    I’m for both of them, I wish they could work together.
    Newt reached out to Santorum long ago for such a mutually-beneficial arangement… but Santorum wanted nothing of it.

  8. Pasadena Phil says:

    Fact: Gingrich’s negatives are BY FAR the highest among everyone running.
    They don’t teach honesty in Texas, just “messaging”. Hahahahahaha!

  9. Pasadena Phil says:

    I forgot to add that Santorum had the lowest negatives of all, about half of BJ Gingrich’s. Rombama came in second highest.

  10. EBL says:

    http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/02/two-candidates-from-two-different.html Interesting analysis from Barone: Fishtown vs. Belmont and some good advice for Mr. Santorum.

  11. Yewter says:

    Reagan was polling much worse than Newt, maybe, but he also wasn’t carrying the same liabilities. Reagan was a popular guy amongst anybody who was not extremely liberal. Some on the right just hadn’t accepted him as a viable political candidate. His biggest black marks were his divorce and the fact he’d been a Democrat, but by then his long marriage to Nancy and his stellar conservative record as CA governor had completely mitigated those very minor problems.
    Gingrich has far bigger problems. He is not likeable like Reagan, he is bitter and petty and is really not more conservative than Santorum. And to top it off, there is Gingrich’s moral problem. Tom Coburn, who is probably the most honest, call-it-as-he-sees it member of Congress, has pointed out Newt’s moral shortcomings with the way he’s handled his marriages.
    Newt is a time-bomb, and he’s not even that much more experienced than Santorum.

  12. A Stephens says:

    I happen to like Newt but I don’t see how he overcomes the “hypocrite” attack. And as much as I appreciate and applaud his fighters instinct with the media, I can’t say with 100% certainty that I trust him after Pelosi, AGW, Right Wing Social Engineering, among other things. I would still vote for him, and hope.
    Romney is a punching bag for Obama, nothing more.
    I actually think Paul could win before Romney could.
    Santorum will beat Obama decisively. Just as Palin would have had she run. Conventional wisdom is what your betters tell you is reality. In this case it’s based on fearmongering falsities. Don’t believe it.

  13. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Why don’t you people edify yourselves. Listen to the speech Gingrich gives at that church in Georgia. No notes, just a man telling what he knows to be true. Now try to imagine either Romney or Santorum being able to do that. No plan that they can explain. They cannot even explain why Obama is wrong. Both Romney and Santorum lost their last elected offices due to being defeated in elections. Gingrich, not so much.

  14. Ragspierre says:

    “They don’t teach honesty in Texas, just “messaging”. Hahahahahaha!”
    Much of Gingrich’s “negatives” are lies.
    Told by people like Fillie.
    Truth trumps lies.

  15. Ragspierre says:

    “Right Wing Social Engineering”
    What Newt said was precisely true. You need to find the quote, in context, and read EVERYTHING he said about the Ryan plan.

  16. If Santorum is the nominee, I’m staying home.
    I’m not the only one.
    We don’t need George W. Bush Junior.

  17. Hope Change says:

    I hear you, J.C. Coolidge.
    Hi Ragspierre, here is the question and NEwt’s answer.
    LISTEN TO THE QUESTION: should Republicans “buck” popular opinion…?
    HERE IS a staggering ly brilliant exposition of American History and the meaning of Conservative Intellectual Tradition in America. The fact that a man of NEwt’s capabilities is willing to go through all this to be our president should be a matter of deep gratitude. For me, it is.
    The American people want free markets, not some warmed-over, third-rate communism or right-wing social engineering. Have you seen Newt’s’ talk for the Citadel? Just staggeringly wonderful American History. http://conservatives4newt.blogspot.com/2012/02/speaker-gingrich-on-conservative.html The Conservative Intellectual Tradition in America
    Newt is the closest thing we have to Reagan since Reagan.
    The people who are still criticizing Newt are like a blindfolded Elmer Fudd with an old blunderbuss. You can hear the sound of the blast, but nothing is hit, or even aimed at.
    It’s amazing when you have watched the speeches, read the material at newt.org, and know THE PLAN — because the criticisms might as well be that you don’t like the color of the car he drives. So Irrelevant.
    I think Newt is probably more right with his conscience that the average human. HE sought reconciliation. He admitted he wanted to be better. he has asked God for forgiveness and help. HOw many people do that? How many POLITICIANS do that? Who are YOU, and you know who you are, to think you can judge him?
    Newt’s a good guy. The idea that he’s angry is silly and you can see that if you watch even a couple of campaign rallies. Newt’s patient and kind. It’s obvious.
    In a rally in Washington State, some people came in about 2.3 of the way through and started yelling that Newt represents “the 1%.” The audience chanted “Newt, Newt, NEwt,” for a while, and then Newt held up his hands and said, it’s all right. He said we have to remember that there’s not necessarily any parallel between noise and intelligence. He was calm. The audience roared with laughter.
    If you want a job and if you have someone you love who might want a job someday, and a house, a car, a good education and a safe and prosperous country to grow up in, WATCH THESE videos and find out the wonderful future we can have.
    Newt – Spokane, Washington 51:36 at electad.com
    Cumming, Georgia – February 26, 2012 – 69:04 — Newt starts at about 24:47
    Rock Springs Baptist Church- Milner, Georgia -19:18
    Seriously, people, and you know who you are, get a clue. Newt is the man with the plan. And Newt will win, BIG TIME, this fall.

  18. threeputtinil says:

    Hope, as usual DITTO & BRAVO FOR TELLING THE TRUTH. Santorum supporters, stop trying to convince us he is conservative (his record proves otherwise), that’s like the establishment telling us Romney’s one of us. Anyone with an ounce of brains, has actually watched debates and townhalls by all candidates, and (here’s the kicker) looked up the facts on their own to verify – knows the only TRULY GIFTED ORATOR, PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVE WITH TRACK RECORD OF BEING ELECTED, ALSO A RECORD BRINGING IN OTHER REPUBS. ON THEIR ELECTED COATTAILS, ONE WHO HAS ALWAYS VOTED TO CUT TAXES (EVEN AGAINST OTHER REPUB. PRESIDENTS WISHES), ONE WHO HAS ACTUALLY BALANCED 4 BUDGETS AND HAS ALWAYS HELPED THE CONSERVATIVE CAUSE & NEW TEA PARTY MOVEMENT, AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST BE ABLE TO BEAT DEMORCRATS ON A CONSERVATIVE PLATFORM IN DEBATES IS NEWT. If the Tea Party people don’t wisen up and let go of the 2 most moderate candidates left (Romney & yes Santorum – he’s a huge supporter of earmarks, and endorser of Romney & Specter, etc.), we lose to Obama.

  19. Huey says:

    J.C. Coolidge and others who, in a snit, will stay home rather than vote for Santorum.
    It’s because of those who do such that we not only lost the Presidency last election in 2008 and didn’t win the Senate in 2010.
    Unless you can convince me that Santorum is less conservative than OBAMA, then telling me that you’re not going to vote for Santorum OVER OBAMA is telling me that you are either not a conservative, are so immature that you would rather have a redical leftist in office just because you couldn’t get “your guy” in office so stayed home in a sulk, actually believe that it is better to have a radical leftist who will cement Obamacare into law thereby putting the final nail into the American Experiment rather than a moderate conservative, or are so simple minded that you are unable to comprehend the potential catastrophic consequences which will befall the U.S. if you and enough people who think as you do “stay home.”
    I swear, every time I hear some supposed “conservative” (which is less a political viewpoint than a worldview) say such things, I want to reach across the ether and give them a “Gibbs” smack on the back of the head.
    I don’t know who you ARE willing to vote for out of the people who are actually running for President. (Or are you one of those who are so defiant against reality that you’re not voting because “your guy/gal” isn’t even RUNNING?) But, I can ASSURE you that, whomever you think is “more conservative” than Santorum, I can make the argument that, at least in SOME AREAS, he is LESS conservative.
    For “conservativism” isn’t a POINT in the political spectrum, it’s a RANGE and represents the WHOLE of the person’s world-view, not singular issues.
    So, actually APPLY the “Buckley rule” and DO as Reagan and Palin implore you to do: Vote for the most conservative candidate who is ELECTABLE.
    And, if you do that, guess what? You GET the most conservative government POSSIBLE. And, if you’re actually a “conservative” who WANTS the “most conservative government possible” and aren’t, instead, consumed with getting “your guy” elected to the extent that your actions actually have the potential to have the OPPOSITE EFFECT, i.e., resulting in having the LEAST CONSERVATIVE candidate elected as a result of “staying home,” then that’s the best possible result.
    If you do not apply the “Buckley rule” in the General Election and vote for the most conservative candidate possible and, instead, “stay home,” then you’re NOT a “conservative,” but, instead, a petulant child who has been denied his candy.

  20. A Stephens says:

    Well said Huey.
    I don’t understand anyone having a problem with conservative credentials of Santorum, Gingrich, and probably Paul as well. None of those three is 100% pure (as no one else is either) so it comes down to personal choice. And in standing up for your personal choice I fail to see the utility of saying you’ll stay home if it’s any other. Seems pretty stupid in my book.
    Now, Romney? Oy. Someone’s going to have to make the case that he’s markedly less “progressive” than Obama for me to vote for him. Based on his track record, his statements, his campaign thus far, and the fiscal trainwreck of his current campaign (consider $ spent per victory for each of the candidates, then tell me who’s fiscally conservative!), I’m not sure anyone can.

  21. HTW says:

    How ironic that those like Ragspierre who identify the criticism of Gingrich as “self-fulfilling” can’t recognize that the same is true of Santorum. Whether one prefers Newt OR Santorum (and there are valid reasons for holding either preference), I think it’s important to not let the Romney campaign-sewn hatred dupe us into these falsehoods that EITHER Newt or Santorum are anything but conservative. Both Newt and Rick Santorum have GREAT records as conservatives, and it’s unfortunate that we allow ourselves to be misled by a well-funded, well-organized campaign that has the resources to go through with a fine tooth comb and then conspicuously publicize any tiny seeming-contradiction or “hypocrisy” that ultimately leads us to erroneously believe that neither of these guys is good.
    Folks, the Romney campaign WANTS you to think that neither Newt nor Santorum are conservatives. They have the resources to promote this mindset. Let’s remember the 11th Amendment lest we weaken either Newt or Santorum in their fights against Romney and then Obama. We have two decent conservatives here! But let’s make sure it’s Romney and Obama we are destroying as we try to advance these guys.

  22. HTW says:

    11th Commandment! :-) Sorry.

  23. “They don’t teach honesty in Texas, just “messaging”. Hahahahahaha!”
    “Hang on, boys, we’re sucking them into Bowie Knife range!” — Colonel Travis

  24. Ragspierre says:

    “How ironic that those like Ragspierre who identify the criticism of Gingrich as “self-fulfilling” can’t recognize that the same is true of Santorum.”
    No irony at work whatsoever, and here’s why…
    People keep carping on “Newt’s negatives”, which are largely
    1. mythical
    2. part of a Mushroom Media meme about Gingrich
    3. and because of 1 and 2, can be reversed
    In my criticism of Sante, I apply his own words (expressed in context, and reflecting his thinking, and lack of political skill), conduct, and record in office.
    Unlike the “Newt’s negatives” crap, which holds he cannot win a general, I hold that I DON’T WANT Sante in the primary to win. I DON’T WANT him in the general, but not because I think he can’t win. He is NOT a conservative, whatever else he may be, IMNHO, just as Paul is not a conservative.
    Again, apply first principles. Anybody who can create and mouth the straw-man term “Radical individualism” is dangerous in my book.
    I do not want Sante, the nanny.

  25. Rags, when you insist Santorum is NOT a conservative, it’s you vs. just about every single conservative organization in this country that ranks politicians. Who do you think has been paying closer attention?

  26. Ragspierre says:

    Think, Richard.
    What do “ratings” consider? The whole picture, or just one or two factors?
    Even some of the entities you cite have noted that Sante has a very curious record come election cycles. Kind of “Two…TWO…TWO Santorums in one”. Which is a good quality in breath mints, but not a POTUS.
    And I am not going to support the some remotely conservative candidate in the primary. Rather, the most conservative, who I consider to be Newt.

  27. Huey says:

    Rags: “And I am not going to support the some remotely conservative candidate in the primary. Rather, the most conservative, who I consider to be Newt.”
    And, that’s the way it SHOULD be.
    In the primary, one should vote for the one who most closely mirrors your world-view. Fight out the intra-party ideological battles in the primaries – where those battles belong.
    But, in the General, unless there is really (on every issue) no difference between the candidates so that it the Buckley view doesn’t apply (i.e., there is no “most conservative” candidate who can be elected) AND there is no discernible difference between the parties – then you vote for the candidate who is most conservative and, if a tie-breaker, for the one who belongs to the most conservative party.

  28. threeputtinil says:

    Richard & Huey, have you guys even looked at Santorums record? If you want a big spender, a guy who loves earmarks, endorses candidates that give us Obamacare, is so extreme on some Religious issues (which he also thinks the Government should have a say in), was sleazy enough to take PA $ to “Home School” his kids in VA, lost his re-election by historic amount, is Pro-Union, and defends all this in the guise of being a republican, go ahead & vote back in another RINO. You can try and twist his record, but thank god it’s soo clear he’s barely a repub., even my 3 yr old could see it. I haven’t even touched on his speeches & his inability to debate. NEWT is the only one that has a plan, can actually implement it and turn our country around. Newts conservative voting record makes Santorums & Romney’s records look democratic. If you want a dem. in the WH vote Santorum or Romney.

  29. Ragspierre says:

    Huey, I pretty much never say never, so I’m SURE not saying I would not vote for Sante in the general.
    I’d LOVE to vote for…and support…somebody Conservative, but…
    I may not get my ‘druthers.

  30. Huey says:

    There are a whole bunch of things in your paragraph. Some are true, others are true…but. Others are false.
    False: He’s pro union. He isn’t. He voted against a NATIONAL right to work law. He was the REPRESENTATIVE of the people of Pennsylvania. His constituents were against that law. He voted against the law.
    Now. There are those who say he’s so “religious” that he’s “extreme” on them. (Dunno what that means. Should he hold “shallow” religious views rather than “deep” ones? But, as a politician, you have to ask yourself the question: Do you want your REPRESENTATIVE to vote HIS conscience or his CONSTITUENTS’ wishes? Be careful. There’s a serious trap in that question. In THAT case, he went with the will of his constituents rather than his own beliefs. I’m cool with that in THAT instance.
    He doesn’t say that government should have a “say” in his “religious issues.” He says that there is no ABSOLUTE separation between church and state. And, there isn’t. Unless, of course, you believe that when someone becomes an elected representatives they should check their religious beliefs at the door and that, when voting, people should check THEIRS at the voting booth curtain.
    Yes. He supported Specter. We got some good with that (two conservative Supreme Court Justices), but got some bad as well. Had he known that Obama would be able to garner 60 votes for Obamacare, perhaps he would have supported Toomey. Dunno.
    Earmarks. You do know that earmarks aren’t evil, don’t you? You do know that even Jack Abramoff acknowledges that the use of them was one of the ways that Congress CONTROLLED the bureaucracies by FORCING them to spend the money in the manner Congress intended – which is one of the MAIN reasons they were created in the first place? They existed. He used them. Unless you can show me that he used them for his own, personal benefit or that he somehow did so in a CORRUPT manner, I give no weight to the fact that he supported them.
    Dunno about the Home Schooling issue. Was it illegal? I do know that he was a resident of Pennsylvania (that’s a matter of legal interpretation – it doesn’t matter where he LIVED. This is the case with most of our representatives we send to Washington. They “live” there, but they RESIDE in the District/State from which they were elected.) It appears that the state tried to sue him for it, but failed. Probably because he complied with the LAW, i.e., he WAS a resident of Pennsylvania even though he “lived” in Virginia. (Look up the legal definition of “domicile” for the future.) I don’t see anything wrong with this.
    I don’t know what you mean by “so extreme on religious issues.” Really. As a non-believer, I tend to believe all “religious issues” are “extreme.” But, I don’t think that anything he has said or done represents an “extreme” position. What are you talking about?
    I don’t support Santorum. But, if you’re going to hammer him, it would help if you did so from the perspective of a conservative rather than the partisan fan of another candidate. We get enough of that from the people who are paid to get the loyal sheep to bleat on command.
    I like Newt, in general. But, he’s got a ton of issues as well. Rick’s my second choice. Then Mitt. Then, God help me, Paul.
    ANYONE but Obama.

  31. Ragspierre says:

    False: He’s pro union. He isn’t. He voted against a NATIONAL right to work law. He was the REPRESENTATIVE of the people of Pennsylvania. His constituents were against that law. He voted against the law.
    He also supports tariffs, Huey, which are pro-union measures, especially as to steel. I get your “political pragmatism” argument. But we are talking about a principled Conservative, which he ain’t.
    Choice is a good thing, and right-to-work laws and free markets are expressions of choice…or liberty put another way.

  32. Huey says:

    Rags: As I’ve noted before, there are principles and there are principles.
    It is the old question: “Do we want our representatives to vote THEIR conscience or OUR will?”
    I’m on the side of BOTH.
    And, frankly, so are all the “conservatives” who decried those who voted their conscience when voting for Obamacare while, at the same time, decried those who voted against the will of the people while voting for Obamacare.
    In THIS area, the “right to work” in a state which had a long history of unions and in which unions are greatly favored, I think that (as in the case of Obamacare) that our representative should subordinate his PERSONAL views and bow to the will of the people. On other issues, I believe that our representatives should vote their conscience.
    As to tarriffs, he doesn’t support ALL tarriffs, does he? He supports PARTICULAR tarriffs – ones where our country suffers a competitive disadvantage when, in the global marketplace, we have to compete with companies which receive the support of THEIR governments – and those commodities where OUR goods suffer a competitive disadvantage because other countries impose duties/tarriffs on OUR goods.
    There certainly is an argument in favor of targeted tarriffs and, in no way, does a pragmatic view of the global economy – a willingness to engage in the economic war which is ALREADY being waged against us by others – an inherently non-conservative view.
    And, I believe that he IS (to the degree possible for any “politician” can be) a “principled conservative, while, at the same time someone who is willing to SUBORDINATE those principles (at least in some cases) to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
    As stated, I’m still with Newt as I believe he has the vision for the problems we face and will be able (and willing) to call Obama (and the media) out in a manner which will be effective (while Rick comes off as petty and mean all too frequently when he goes “negative.”)
    That DOESN’T mean that I blindly support Newt nor that I will blindly follow the anti-Santorum narrative in my support of Newt (not saying that you are, just that I won’t.)

  33. Rags,
    I believe they predominantly go by the politicians’ voting records.

  34. Ragspierre says:

    Richard, exactly my point.
    Huey, WRT tariffs, there is always a special pleading to justify them, and YES, Sante was quite selective in which tariffs he supported. The ones protecting his constituent’s interests, at the expense of all the rest of us.
    I’m of the school that says an office-holder should vote his principles, after doing all possible to educate his constituents about WHY he/she is taking the position, where principle comes into play. If that is political suicide…so be it.
    I am not a “pragmatist”, as you may have noted. Targeted tariffs are tariffs, and NOT Conservative at all (again, applying first principles like “liberty”).
    Don’t hate me ’cause I’m beautiful…

  35. Huey says:

    Rags: I’m generally of the belief that our representatives should vote their “conscience,” on matters of deep principle.
    For example: Abortion. Constitutional rights. The big issues.
    But, a federal right to work law which IMPOSED upon the citizens of Pennsylvania a law which they didn’t WANT is one of those laws which present COMPETING principles and think that Santorum was right on this vote.
    But, there was no “moral” issue there. There is nothing “wrong” with the people of Pennsylvania not wanting their state to have the federal government impose its will on how they conduct their management/labor relations. Wrong-headed, to be sure, but not “immoral.”
    On the other hand, for Santorum to betray the citizens and IMPOSE on the citizens of Pennsylvania (and the citizens of other states which didn’t want the law) a law which they didn’t want certainly could be viewed as violating the very principles you espouse, not the least of which are the 9th and 10th Amendments.
    As to tarriffs, I’m of the mind that, if we allow the governments of other countries to gain a competitive advantage against us through the use of tarriffs or through government help on the cost of goods and we don’t reply in kind, we’ll simply concede losing the economic war – which, in great part, we have.
    When it comes to business, I’m very pragmatic indeed.

  36. Ragspierre says:

    Huey, I made no argument on the top down imposition of right-to-work, and generally agree with your statement.
    Tariffs, as I note, can…and are…ALWAYS supported by a special pleading. If other nations are imposing costs on their people, I am thrilled to help them. My counter move would be to buy up all they’d sell, if I were a competitor, then sell. They would learn quickly enough.
    We are not losing any trade wars of which I am aware, though we have certainly been made non-competitive in many markets by regulation and other impositions, like our very high corporate income-tax.

  37. Huey says:

    Heh. Is there some company which could afford to buy up all the steel on the market? Including all the steel which would be made tomorrow? And the next day? Even though the sellers would know what’s happening and would continue to profit by raising their prices? Not sure how you get to that business model…it would quickly break any company which tried it – else it would be done with every commodity – all the time.
    As to us no losing trade wars, dunno about that. We have lost whole sectors of the manufacturing base. Japan dumped cars on us for decades until they got a big enough market share. Motorcycles as well. Cameras. Video/DVD players. Televisions (don’t make any in the U.S. anymore, do we?). I would argue that in many sectors we’re not losing the trade wars, we’ve LOST them and are losing more of them each day that passes.
    (I wholeheartedly agree that the regulations and other state/local/federal mandates/laws/regulations/whatevers have imposed prohibitive costs on us that don’t exist elsewhere or are less elsewhere. Taxes too…)
    I also tend to view what a politician does based on what they CAN do. Sometimes, when the issue is an unlevel playing field and you’re a Senator (as opposed to the President) maybe the only thing you CAN get done is to impose tarriffs as you’re not getting rid of the regulations/laws/etc. As I’ve often said, they are ALL “big government politicians” – it’s just a matter of subject and degree.

  38. Ragspierre says:

    “Is there some company which could afford to buy up all the steel on the market? Including all the steel which would be made tomorrow? And the next day? Even though the sellers would know what’s happening and would continue to profit by raising their prices? Not sure how you get to that business model…it would quickly break any company which tried it – else it would be done with every commodity – all the time.”
    I feel it only fair to give you a chance to reread that and amend.
    It breaks down really quickly.
    Really, Huey, you need to read up on cars and motorcycles!!! Japan beat Detroit and Milwaukee with QUALITY and economy, not “dumping”…!!!

  39. Huey says:

    You really think that the cars they began with were better quality than ours? You’re old enough to remember when “Made in Japan” was tantamount to “Crap.” (As was, and still is in some minds “Made in China”)
    Japan subsidized those cars. The companies sold them below cost (i.e., “dumped”) here. They wouldn’t allow us to put plants over there, yet we allowed them to put plants here. Over the decades, their products got better and ours got worse (for a variety of reasons which generally can be termed “hubris.”)
    But, the war was won in the beginning, when they were allowed to dump their products and take market share. They cemented their win in later decades.
    The same is true of the electronics industry. And, yes, I’ve read up on this subject – both the decades of the 70’s and 80’s when they were getting their footholds and later when they beat us at our own game with plants in our country.
    BTW which company is it which buys up all the commodities on the market and resells it causing countries to “rethink” their policy of tarriffs/duties and subsidies?

  40. Ragspierre says:

    Go back to the Reagan era when QUOTAS were put on inexpensive Japanese cars, Huey.
    Read up on that, and tell me what you find.
    No company “buys up all…”. That is beneath you. But a company need not buy more than a fraction to effect a market.

  41. Huey says:

    Sure, in the 80’s there were quotas placed (belatedly) on the cars (and many other goods and not just from Japan). But, they were ineffective. The issue was market share. They continued, even with the quotas (and tarriffs – in some cases 100%) to increase market share.
    My statement about buying “all” was related to this statement of yours: “My counter move would be to buy up all they’d sell, if I were a competitor, then sell..”
    I guess “all they’d sell” could be interpreted as “a fraction,” but, initially, I didn’t read it that way.
    I just don’t see it as a viable method to make a country to change its behavior. There is no penalty. They sell the product at the price they want then make more. Sure, buying then reselling a fraction could affect the market, but how that affects the country’s behavior eludes me.
    Let’s just agree that many “conservatives” are convinced that tarriffs and whatnot are vehicles which can be used to attempt to level the playing field against other countries who engage in practices which give them an advantage that make their products too attractive to U.S. consumers when, absent those practices, those products would be less attractive to U.S. consumers.
    Are there better ways? Assuredly. Have they worked? Dunno. Tarriffs and whatnot don’t work very well either. But, without something being done, we’ll continue to lose what little we have left of our manufacturing base in this country.
    Now, many make the argument (libertarians such as Paul, for example) that it doesn’t matter if Apple makes all its computers in China (Ipads and whatnot) because they are cheaper and we are able to satisfy our material needs for less dollars, leaving us to use those unspent dollars on other things. And, as far as this goes, it makes sense.
    But, what it doesn’t do is address the question: “Where do we GET those dollars if there aren’t any jobs?” And, that is where the libertarian “free trade” argument breaks down, in my opinion, and the “protectionist” argument gains strength.
    Up until now, the U.S. has been able to move into other areas to create new markets so to get those dollars to buy goods made elsewhere, but we’re quickly getting to the point where this is no longer true. This is an outgrowth of many factors, but the primary ones are: high taxation on corporations, burdensome regulations on companies, a terrible and outdated educational system, unions, judges which allow for frivolous cases to proceed to judgment instead of dismissing them in the initial stages, class action lawsuits, laws which make hiring/firing decisions legal decisions rather than meritorious ones, the decrease in the technological “gap” between the U.S. and many other countries, among many other factors.
    Heh. We don’t have to agree on everything. I’m a libertarian on many issues – conservative on others – a complete liberal on others – but, hopefully, whatever opinion I hold is one which I have given consideration and have come to a rational (if erroneous in the minds of others) conclusion.

  42. Ragspierre says:

    Huey, you dodged the quota lesson. I’m disappointed!
    How did the Japanese auto makers respond?
    C’mon, you can do this…

  43. Huey says:

    Sorry, thought I had addressed it with this: “we allowed them to put plants here.”
    While they wouldn’t allow us to put plants there.

  44. threeputtinil says:

    Huey, look up SAntorums views on gays and some of the comments he’s made, look up his views on contraception, wait, you should know to do this yourself. Oh and nice try with I don’t know anything about the “Home Schooling” thing, you sounded just like Romney in the FL debate when the moderator asked him about the false ad attacking Newt, and he said, I don’t know anything about that ad, as well as asking Newt “is it True?”, only you answered with “Is it illegal”, no , having a house in PA, not living there by choice as a representative of the state and voting for the states issues, although they don’t effect him in VA, and the fact that he took money to educate at Home in VA makes him a SLEAZY POLITICIAN and human. Thank you RAgs for setting Huey straight on the Pro-Union, and Huey, as a conservative, I HATE ALL EARMARKS EQUALLY. Don’t excuse his pathetic voting past away to a true conservative. EARMARKS are like drinking in the addiction world, it’s the gateway drug to OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING AT THE TAXPAYERS EXPENSE. Your rebuttal held very little substance to it. It was just like Ricky in AZ, trying to excuse his “team sport” spirit as a big spender on the RINO in office Bush. Huey, it’s time for a new team, and we don’t need or want Ricky.

  45. Huey says:

    threeputtinil: He’s a Catholic. He believes that engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin. That’s shocking? He doesn’t want to make it illegal or punish anyone for engaging in the behavior. He believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. What’s so shocking about this?
    He wanted to home school his kids. What’s wrong with that? He WAS a resident of Pennsylvania and used Pennsylvania laws available to every resident of Pennsylvania to do so. What’s wrong with that? He, like just about any of our legislators “lived” in Virginia (or Maryland or Washington D.C.) so that’s where his kids “lived.” Do you expect him to “live” in Pennsylvania when his job was in Washington D.C.? Do you expect him to leave his kids in Pennsylvania while he’s in Washington? I don’t know how this makes him a “sleazy politician.” It makes him a dad who is homeschooling his kids IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW.
    He believes that the use of contraception violates his religious beliefs. This is the belief of the Catholic church. Is there something weird about this? He also believes that the pill causes a great deal of physical problems – and it does. He believes that the widespread use of the pill – and the sexual freedom which it allows – has caused a great number of social ills. I tend to agree with this, although I don’t believe that the ills outweigh the good. He doesn’t want to impose these beliefs on anyone else. What is wrong with these views? They are the views of any devout Catholic.
    I don’t concede that Rags set me straight on the pro-union issue.
    Earmarks aren’t inherently evil. They were introduced, in large part, to make sure that the money (our tax money) was actually spent in the manner which Congress intended. What’s wrong with that? Isn’t that the function of Congress according to the Constitution? If there are no earmarks, then the executive branch, through the bureaucracy, can spend the money any way it pleases. Does this make you happy? To give over completely to Obama how he spends the money rather than have it spent as Congress wishes? How’s that working out for you? Earmarks aren’t the problem – the moral fiber of the people we send to Congress is the problem. If you can buy votes by supporting an earmark, then the problem is that our representatives are subject to having their votes bought. But, that’s always been true. The difference now is that the executive branch has ITS hands on the purse string rather than our legislators. Again, how’s that working out for ya’?
    As for my lack of substance, I really can’t impart much more on a blog than I have. But, for the format, I think my responses were quite substantive.

  46. threeputtinil says:

    Huey, look it up – don’t hide behind he’s a catholic, and not all catholics believe gays are immediately equal to Man-on-dog sex (Santorum does). Sin is one thing, sick and twisted is another, and Rick goes there. I am catholic, have used contraception (don’t always agree with catholic church on many matters such as the pill and especially with how they handled the child sexual abuse and the preists) without the help of Government, have been a pregnant woman who appreciated the ultra-sounds and all the PRENATAL testing that would help monitor my child’s & my well being and that was under my insurance, not paid for by the Govt., and for Santorum to oppose those as a Social conservative issue is just stupid – not catholic. What great physical problems do the pill have? The doctor always warns of side effects, but they also know their patients, and the physical problems with blood pressure, bleeding, nausea, the doctor will know whether they’re high risk when taking the pill. If you take it against your Doctor’s suggestions, your bad. Where did you get your info. And yes, earmarks ARE NOW INHERENTLY EVIL – like everything else the government abuses, whatever the intent, it’s now F’d up. I’m so glad you critique yourself so highly – wonder how many will agree with you? By the way, Santorum definetly wants to impose his Social Conservative views on us via the Govt. Again, many articles in the last week that prove this.

  47. Huey says:

    threeputtnil: Sorry, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I think that you have read a whole lot more into Santorum’s statements than exist, but as a lapsed Catholic, I suppose that’s natural since he actually is following the teaching of the church you claim to be a member of.
    Santorum didn’t equate beastiality to homosexuality. That’s not true. If you believe it to be true, provide the statement, whole and in context, so that I can read it.
    If you don’t know the host of physical problems that the pill causes, can’t help you there. As you say, “look it up.”
    If you believe that Santorum actually intends to impose the views of the Catholic church on the rest of us, again – can’t help you there. It is a belief which is unfounded in reality and Santorum’s political history.
    Again. There is nothing inherently evil about earmarks. Don’t know how you don’t see that. Apparently “money is evil,” not the things that people do with and to get money. Can’t help you with that mindset other than point out what earmarks were for and the consequences of getting rid of them. The fact that immoral men and women did immoral things with earmarks doesn’t make the earmarks immoral any more than the LACK of earmarks make those same immoral people moral. They found different ways to get bought – just now they can’t be swayed by CONGRESS with our money, but by OBAMA.
    (And, I agree. Many “Catholics” call themselves “Catholics” while not living their lives in accord with “Catholic” teachings. They are as “Catholic” as any “Protestant” or un-believer.)

  48. threeputtinil says:

    Oh, and on the schooling – ask a Pennsylvanian how they fell about it. And the excuse “they all do it” is just another cop-out. A lot of the Senators and Reps. live in their own states & commute or rent space with others living in big houses like college dorms or apts., but their family normally lives in the state they represent. Using that as an excuse to bilk the PA taxpayer for his kids schooling is pathetic. He did it because that state offered it & VA didn’t. I’m sure he helped implement the bill for the state also, although never intending to acutually live with his constituents. Not as nice of a setting as VA nor as convienient. Think that could have been one of the reasons he lost by a landslide? Could also be why he won’t win his own state in primary.

  49. Huey says:

    threeputtinil: Really. I can’t help you. Santorum complied with the law. He homeschooled his kids in the place he hung his hat. He (like almost every Senator) “lived” in or around Washington D.C. Like most Senators with school aged kids, his kids lived with him. As a resident of Pennsylvania, he homeschooled them in accordance with the law of his home state.
    I understand you have a problem with that. Dunno why. I think you just don’t like him because he’s a devout Catholic and actually attempts to follow the teachings of the Church and that scares you.
    I thought we went through all that with J.F.K., but what do I know?

  50. Ragspierre says:

    OK, Huey, maybe this is too hard…
    But, no, the Japanese…faced with quotas on their cheaper models (which WERE profitable, and NOT “dumped”)…shifted import numbers to higher priced models which were MORE profitable, but not under the quota…
    and also shifted production to the U.S.
    Who did that hurt?
    Consumers of lower-priced cars. Oh, and American car-makers and their labor.
    Classic story of how markets work, and how they make fools of people who tinker with them, while they (the tinkerers) hurt the poorest of us.
    Check it out.

  51. Huey says:

    I don’t remember them “shifting,” nor did I find any resource which mentioned it, although I don’t have any problem with your assertion that it occurred. The few resources I Googled were in line with my memory, i.e. that they opened plants here while denying us the opportunity to do so there. (I kept up with this somewhat at the time as, while in Japan in ’81 I was flabberghasted to find “No occidentals allowed” signs at many restaurants…kinda pissed me off…)
    And, frankly, I don’t agree with your assertion that the cars weren’t “dumped.” There is a difference between a car being “dumped” (being sold for less than it cost to produce) and the sale being “profitable” once the government subsidies are taken into consideration. Nor does your recollection of them being “profitable” (at least in the beginning) does not comport with my memory nor the few resources I have reviewed.
    As I stated, there is the argument that Paul makes about the lower cost of goods and, as I said, it is a good argument as far as it goes.
    But, the market share, once taken, is difficult to get back – both here and abroad. And, at some point, the market share is so great that the company simply goes out of business – or, indeed, here in the U.S. essentially a whole industry goes out of business (e.g., televisions – all but one motorcycle manufacturer and it’s thinking of moving).
    Anyway, I’m not saying that I’m for protectionism, but simply making the same argument that Reagan made, that such tactics in a dirty world are not anti-conservative. This notion that any action which inhibits “freedom” is inherently anti-conservative simply isn’t true. The argument here, against Santorum, is that, because he supports targeted trade “sanctions” to level the playing field, that this is not a “conservative” stance.
    We each have, as I have so frequently stated, differing definitions of the word “conservative.” It is, as it must be, a self-defined term. That’s one of the reasons I sometimes pop off when someone classifies another as either a “conservative” or “not a conservative” when that classification is based on an internalized definition which is not universally agreed upon by others who also self-define as “conservative.”

  52. Ragspierre says:

    I wish I could cite you to the source of that story, Huey. It likely was a Milton Friedman or Sowell book or long article, and may never have made it onto the interwebs.
    I’ll let it swirl around a bit, and it may float to the surface.

  53. Huey says:

    I remember, somewhat, the debate at the time. As it relates to the “dumping” or “not dumping” question, what I remember is that it was alleged that they were dumping.
    Dumping, as you know, is a violation of international law.
    Accordingly, they denied that they were.
    And, it wasn’t a clear-cut thing. Due to the incestuous nature of Japanese business and government (not to mention the super-corporate structure of the mega-corporations in Japan), there simply was no clear cut answer to the question of “dumping.”
    I “believe” now, as I did then, that they were dumping. I think it’s impossible to prove one way or another.

  54. threeputtinil says:

    Huey why can’t you stick to the points and not give your Opinion of what you think is my problem with Rick. You pick and choose stupid parts of the arguement to fight about. You only give your opinion, where I gave you statements and have given you his stances from this week alone of why he is both a phony conservative,and completely wrong on his SOCIAL ISSUES. I don’t fear his being a devout catholic, I fear ANYONE WHO WANTS TO IMPOSE HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON ME THRU THE GOVT. AND THAT’S TRUE OF ANY RELIGION. I’ve given you examples and asked you for facts on any of what you spouted, and of course you gave me your opinion. When you can come up with something other than his “devoutness” for his faith, that is backed up by a source other than your opinion, maybe I’ll listen to you. If you watched one Gingrich clip maybe you could educate yourself on the Separation of Church and State while still being able to practice your religion in private. By the way, are you catholic? If so, ever hear of Opus Dei? Guess who’s kids “ON-LINE HOME SCHOOLING” charter school has quite a few of their chairman as members of the Opus Dei? Most run of the mill catholics don’t think particulary highly of this faction of the church. Santorum beliefs ( got that from actually seeing clips where he defends his stances – look it up there are many) are definetly in synch with Opus Dei. It’s starting to sound like you may be a lot like Rick.

  55. Huey says:

    threeputtinil: This is your screed which started this “argument:”
    “Richard & Huey, have you guys even looked at Santorums record? If you want a big spender, a guy who loves earmarks, endorses candidates that give us Obamacare, is so extreme on some Religious issues (which he also thinks the Government should have a say in), was sleazy enough to take PA $ to “Home School” his kids in VA, lost his re-election by historic amount, is Pro-Union, and defends all this in the guise of being a republican, go ahead & vote back in another RINO. You can try and twist his record, but thank god it’s soo clear he’s barely a repub., even my 3 yr old could see it. I haven’t even touched on his speeches & his inability to debate. NEWT is the only one that has a plan, can actually implement it and turn our country around. Newts conservative voting record makes Santorums & Romney’s records look democratic. If you want a dem. in the WH vote Santorum or Romney. ”
    There are no facts in this screed. It as a rant filled with nothing but a bunch of conclusions based on who the heck knows what. Nonetheless, I took each of your “points” and addressed each one of them. As this is not a scholarly journal, I didn’t take the time to cite my sources, and after a couple times of reading your rantings, I figured out that it would be useless as you have convinced yourself that your reality is the only one.
    You continue to say that Santorum wants to impose his religious beliefs on us. You are delusional. He has never said such a thing. He has a lifetime in public office in which he has never attempted such a thing. Yet you continue to scream at the top of your virtual lungs that this is his evil intention.
    This notion of “separation of church and state” of which you speak doesn’t exist. It has been crafted from whole cloth. The Constitution was framed, in largest part, by believers.
    As John Adams stated:
    “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.”
    And elsewhere:
    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
    Liberals, secularists want to impose the notion of an absolute separation of church and state. I addressed Santorum’s views in my first post to you.
    No. I’m not Catholic. I admire men of faith if their religion is a mature one capable of acknowledging the right of other religions to exist and are capable of attempting to live by the tenents of the religion they have chosen.
    I, on the other hand, am not a believer.
    I have no problem with those who DO believe. Mormon, Jew, Catholic, Evangelical. I don’t give a tinker’s damn so long as they live their lives by the teachings they profess to follow. If they do (with the caveats noted above) then I admire (and envy) them their faith.
    But, it’s not for me.
    By the same token, I don’t assume that, just because someone is devout and he has chosen the path of public service that HE IS EVIL AND WANTS TO IMPOSE HIS RELIGION ON ME. Like your Book says, I know them by their fruits. And, Santorum’s “fruits” have NOT been such that any sane and rational person would fear the imposition of a Catholic regime.
    Yet, you again make the claim.
    I can’t help you with that. I suspect that no one can.

  56. threeputtinil says:

    Huey your an arse!! Please don’t lecture me on what is based on facts when you once again give not one reference to where you learned anything about Santorum. What you don’t like is that it’s all true and has been in the news for at least 3 weeks. Santorum can’t keep his mouth shut. By the way, if you go to Legal Insurrection, look at how well your devout catholic did in AZ and MI with members of his faith. Santorum’s now a joke and a has been. By the way, Gingrich is very religious and has done quite a few good things for the Catholic Church, note I am not threatened, actually he’s done more for the catholic church in the few years he’s been in the church than Santorum has done in his whole life. Sounds just like their political records when you compare them. Santorum is and always will be a light-weight in this primary. Sorry reaching out to the MI democrats didn’t work out for him. Can’t wait to see the ads now on how Santorum pleads for a democrats helping hand to win a Republican primary. GO NEWT.

  57. Huey says:

    threeputtinil: Sigh, for a person who demands that I post links to references for my views on Santorum, you surely don’t seem to require the same of yourself. (But, for the general gist of what he stands for, type in “Rick Santorum home page” in that little box thingie some people call “Google” and you might find out what he says he believes. A review of his voting record in the House and Senate. (Again – Google – “Rick Santorum voting record” I’m sure you can find it. If not, ask someone. A child, perhaps.)
    I know why, you don’t list any links to any actual facts which support your screed, though. They don’t exist.
    But, just to give you something to read (reading helps with grammar and spelling, I hear):
    On earmarks: “He supported earmarks like all of his competitors because the question of who decides where to spend federal taxpayer dollars has already been decided by the Constitution — it’s the Congress.” These are the words on his web site. They are very close to my “opinion.” Do you deny that it is in Congress’ purview to determine how money is spent rather than the executive branch. (Never mind, I know your answer – EARMARKS ARE EEEEEVVVVVVIIIIIILLLLL!!!! SCREEECCCCHHHH!!!)
    On pro-union: “In the Senate, Rick voted to allow states to determine their own right-to-work laws. These laws protect employees from having to join unions in order to work for a company. Today, Rick believes that a National Right-to-Work law is important to curb union abuses and further strengthen the manufacturing sectors of our economy.”
    While he was in the Senate, representing the people of Pennsylvania, he bowed to the will of the people of his state even though he said in the debates that he believes in right-to-work. His current stance (as President and representing all the people) is to impose right-to-work. Just how is that “pro-union?” (Never mind, I know your answer: “He’s PRO-UNION! I READ THAT SOMEWHERE!)
    As to Specter: “Rick got a commitment from Arlen Specter that no matter who George W. Bush would nominate, he would support that nominee.” We got two solid, conservative Justices out of that agreement. We also got Obamacare. He knew about the first, but not the second when he supported Specter. I think he was wrong in this support, but, I don’t find anything sleazy about it. (But, you say? “EVIL! EVIL! EVIL!”)
    As to the contraceptive thing and this insane notion that he wants to impose a Catholic theocracy – do your own research. If you can’t Google, ask someone for help. (Try “Contraceptive side effects” then, perhaps, “Societal effects of the sexual revolution.” I’m sure you’ll find something…)
    If you watched the debates or anything which resembled news maker shows in which he answered this question about a zillion times (ask someone which channels get that thing called “news”) you would know that his religious beliefs are his personal beliefs and he doesn’t intend or have any desire to impose them on anyone else. In fact, he is very sensitive to that very thing (that whole “1st Amendment” thing…he doesn’t want someone to, say, impose a MORMON regime on him either….)
    Read a damn book.

  58. Huey says:

    threeputtinil: Sorry for the personal attack in response to your personal attacks. I generally try not to stoop to such levels. I won’t do so again.

  59. Ragspierre says:

    There you go, Huey. A little reading on the subject of the Japanese car quotas.
    Please note that there is nothing to support the “dumping” myth, but there is clear evidence of exactly what you’d expect from an industry that was nearly an American monopoly, competing with a new and eager competitor. Approx. 200 hours to produce an American car versus 100 hours for a Japanese car.
    Note also that “dumping” would violate international law and trade agreements, and readily provoke a governmental response.
    The Japanese car makers were making a profit. Why the HELL would they build American plants to sell cars at a loss??? See, it is irrational on its face.

  60. Ragspierre says:

    That last post reads more bellicose than I intended…
    ascribe it to caffeine deficiency, please…

  61. Huey says:

    Rags: As I said, it was alleged that they were dumping. Many actions were brought, but, Japan “voluntarily” agreed to quotas and tarriffs. Their actions did provoke governmental action. (This article provides a pretty good list of the actions which Reagan implemented – http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=489 )
    Another source on the allegations of dumping:
    1982: Harley Davidson wins an anti-dumping lawsuit – http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/HarleyDavidson-Inc-company-History.html
    The trade war and allegations of dumping were in many areas, not just cars and motorcycles. Tarriffs and quotas were imposed.
    (I never said that the Japanese car makers built plants here to sell them at a loss. I said that they dumped cars here in the beginning to build market share, then, once market share was built (and, more importantly, once the “Made in Japan” label no longer meant “This stuff is cheaply made crap”), they built plants here and sold them at market price.)
    I don’t think that this is an argument which can be settled now any more than it could be settled then, although, at least in some cases, actions alleging dumping were brought and won.

  62. Ragspierre says:

    Was the 1982 judgment based on reality, or politics, Huey?
    After the company’s top management toured Honda’s Marysville plant in 1981, Vaughn Beals noted in Fortune, “We were being wiped out by the Japanese because they were better managers. It wasn’t robotics, or culture, or morning calisthenics and company songs–it was professional managers who understood their business and paid attention to detail.”
    Ever own an older Harley? Crap engineering that had not changed appreciably since WWII. British bikes used to have a pretty good market share, but they were awful. Used to say you had to keep a pan under the bike to collect the oil so you could pour it back into the engine so you could ride.
    I scanned your cites. There is no reference to auto dumping.

  63. Huey says:

    First source is about the Reagan protectionist policies prompted by allegations of unfair trade practices – many different areas.
    Second specifically mentions dumping of cars: “These complaints generally alleged unfair trading practices, such as dumping (selling at a lower cost than at home, or selling below the cost of production) and patent infringement. The result of negotiations was often Japan’s agreement “voluntarily” to restrain exports to the United States. Such agreements applied to a number of products, including color television sets in the late 1970s and automobiles in the 1980s. ”
    Other allegations of “dumping:”
    It didn’t end in the 80’s. When mini-vans became popular, they did it again and for the same reason – to gain market share: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-12-21/business/fi-528_1_officials-rule
    Japan thinks long term in this economic war. A good article: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/japanyes.txt
    Of course, we do it too. Just not as well.

  64. Ragspierre says:

    With imports of foreign cars, the reverse is true, they have said. It is easy to demonstrate the injury suffered, simply by looking at American plants that have closed,
    ***but harder to demonstrate unfair pricing.***
    Thomas H. Hanna, the president of the association, said, ”We thought the first reasonable step was to convey the results of the study to the Secretary.” He said no decision had been made on whether to file a dumping petition. Sharp Setback in Canada
    Last week, the domestic industry suffered a sharp setback in Canada, when a Government tribunal ruled that the Canadian subsidiaries of the General Motors Corporation and the Ford Motor Company had not been injured even though Hyundai had sold cars in Canada for less than it sells them in South Korea. Auto analysts said at the time the Canadian decision would tend to discourage the filing of dumping suits in the United States.
    So, self-interested…and patently weak…allegations.

  65. Ragspierre says:

    “These complaints generally alleged unfair trading practices, such as dumping (selling at a lower cost than at home, or selling below the cost of production) and patent infringement. The result of negotiations was often Japan’s agreement “voluntarily” to restrain exports to the United States. Such agreements applied to a number of products, including color television sets in the late 1970s and automobiles in the 1980s. ”
    Please, Huey. That ‘graph goes from the general to the specific. Cripes.

  66. Ragspierre says:

    WASHINGTON — The federal government’s trade agency ruled yesterday that Detroit’s automakers had not suffered significant harm from imported Japanese minivans, a verdict that prevents the Commerce Department from proceeding with plans to impose tariffs on the imports.
    The decision by the independent agency, the International Trade Commission, to reject a highly political case is a landmark in U.S. trade policy.
    The American Big Three alleged a 30% “fair market” discrepancy. Which even Commerce found was BS.

  67. Huey says:

    Rags: There were allegations of dumping. That is what I said. I believe that some of those allegations were true. And, frankly, some dumping continues. And, of course, it is the parties who perceive themselves injured by the acts (the “self-interested”) who bring forth the complaints. Who else would do so?
    But, as always, even when we disagree, I learned from the experience. Your mention of the “cartels” made me do some research on that subject as I didn’t have much grounding in it. PBS did a great overview of how they were used in the electronics industry to take over that industry.
    God, I love the internet. When I speak to youngsters, I am so frequently dismayed at the level of abject ignorance they routinely display on just about every subject and at a time when anyone can inform themselves cheaply and quickly. I remember when, if I wanted a view of the world which was different from that which was presented by the 3 stations and the 2 newspapers (and, of course, Time, Newsweek, the NYT and the WSJ – all of which could be read at the library) – I had to go to a major library and pick up Pravda or some such – just to get an idea of what others were thinking and saying.
    Now…do a Google search…
    And, they won’t even do that…

  68. Huey says:

    Oh…and the other thing about our internet arguments. The very act of checking my sources and ferreting out other sources exposes me to sources which contradict what I believe or, at least, indicate that, while the facts may be correct, there are other interpretations which are rational which can be inferred from those facts.
    Like here. A whole bunch of things were going on which make the statement of “Japan was dumping” a simplistic and incomplete statement (but perfect jingoism for a politician…)
    Live and learn. Hopefully.

  69. Ragspierre says:

    Agreed, dude! I adore the learning process, and find it altogether TOO absorbing.
    I personally find that economic thinking is counter-intuitive, so I’ve really pushed myself to understand the logic involved. And talk about IGNORANCE…!!!! Few topics are LESS understood by MOST Americans, and the poor kids are especially ill-served in this regard.
    The Japanese keiretsu is a fascinating economic, historical, cultural, and psychological study. I remember a LOT of people in the US fretting it was TOO powerful a business model, and we could not compete with the Japanese. Funny how overblown those views seem now!
    I am grateful every day for “foreign devils” who bring me food, products, etc. that make my life richer than any king a century or two could aspire to have.

  70. FeFe says:

    Like, Jenn’s droning on about sports. She must be in love! Who is the lucky guy?

  71. Marya says:

    Perfect analysis, IMO. I never liked the newt, mnaliy because I think he blew it when he had the reins of gov.I consider myself socially conservative, but I do not want the state to force others to be the same. That is at odds with liberty which is first job No. 1. With true liberty comes self reliance not socialism. Lower taxes, smaller government, eliminating the mile of red tape regulations, that is the ticket to my vote.I’ll take a chance on newt if it goes that way, which is very likely, almost a lock at this point.

  72. Viviane says:

    The logic here is surely ehsmwoat flawed. You hold that social conservatism is about the ability of people to choose the institutions which shape their lives. Yet hasn’t social conservatism largely been about *preventing* choice civil unions, abortions, even marijuana? To the extent that these issues can be regarded as parts of unique institutionalized belief systems, their operation has been continually blocked by social conservatives. And it still stands deeply opposed to the government, hermetically sealed from the richness that personal beliefs give, taking over the major institutions of our social lives. Yet social conservatives have been happy for the government to keep control of the institution of marriage