Megamissions. A bald and unconvincing narrative; Newt Leads, immigration policy strategy

View 703 Thursday, December 01, 2011

I was involved in a discussion in another conference, and was reminded of my Megamissions Essay. I had to search to find it, and was astonished to find that I last worked on it in 1994. It needs some work. We did not develop THOR, nor did we built Thoth missiles, but we did develop Hellfire and drones.

In searching for my megamisions essay I found an exchange of mail with a reader on USAF and US Army missions that is still relevant today.

Meanwhile the power is out in many places in Los Angeles. We had a minor flicker last night, but the neighborhood seems to be intact. All’s well, but I am again far behind in other stuff.

I am curious about the Herman Cain affair. Apparently the first barrage against him with Gloria Allred leading the charge came to nothing, and the stories told of his ‘sexual harassment’ seem to have fallen apart. Comes now Ginger Smith. I don’t know if she has any connection with Axelrod, and of course her story of a decade and more long affair with Mr. Cain may be true: but so far we haven’t seen the evidence. There are claims that Cain paid her, but there’s no specification: how much, and how? Cash? Check? Credit card? As to the telephone communications, we don’t know who called whom, now long they talked if at all, who texted whom, were any answered? Cain may well have had a long time mistress whom he met infrequently; she herself describes all this as ‘a casual affair’; but one would think that if she is going to come forward with this story – and why is she doing that? – she would add corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. So far we have not seen much in the way of corroborative details.

So we now have Newt as the latest “I’m not Romney” and the big guns will be laid using different aiming stakes. We may expect a large TOT barrage shortly.

And I really have stuff I have to do. I can recommend the old but still relevant stuff linked to above:

Megamissions

On USAF and Army doctrines

And I am off to lunch.

The latest polls show that Newt beats Obama, 45% to 43%. Incidentally, I know of no political figure in any contested political office who has been reelected with 43% or lower approval rating.

Immigration Absolutism    Jerry, I can understand absolutism on rejecting amnesty for illegal immigrants for the same reason I can understand absolutism on rejecting tax increases. Both make huge sense – as tactical positions.

In both cases, we have a fundamental political conflict not practically solvable by compromise: Open borders (with US citizenship meaningless) versus secure borders, and exponential growth in government’s share of the economy (with as endpoint the government becoming the economy) versus limited government.

In both cases, the other side has repeatedly made "compromise" deals (offering reduced spending for higher taxes, offering more secure borders for amnesty) then flagrantly violated them. Spending wasn’t reduced, the borders weren’t secured.

Tactically speaking, any position other than insisting on reduced spending (or secured borders) before even discussing any tax increase (or amnesty) is suicidal – the other side cannot be trusted, period.

Newt’s partial amnesty position was as I recall explicitly hypothetical – given the borders secured, then what? Gingrich is either foolish or brave to discuss longer term complexities in the simplistic heat of a primary campaign, but you’re not the only one who thinks that he may be looking past the primaries to the general election, where he’ll need to appeal to the center.

Note in that regard today’s Gallup poll that for the first time has the former Speaker leading the current President, 45-43. Newt’s signal to the center was received, apparently.

sign me

Porkypine

I agree regarding tax increases: no tax increase without irrevocable spending cuts in the same bill. Under those conditions I might be amenable to selective tax increases, particularly the largely symbolic taxes on “the rich” (they are symbolic because they are easily avoided; and they do give the appearance and sometimes even the reality of being more fair). But any tax increase not accompanied by not the promise, but the actual cut, in spending should be rejected. I don’t really mind taxes that reduce the gap between top and bottom, but I would rather have that gap than have the government get more money to use to increase spending, and we know that is what will happen if government gets more money. It always happens.

Interesting speculation on why Newt brought this up. May well be. I wouldn’t have advised it, but it seems to have been successful.

From your daybook last Wednesday:

"As Governor Perry put it, there ought to be a visa stapled to the degree certificate. I can’t think anyone would object to that."

Sigh. You’d think so, wouldn’t you? I said as much on a CSPAN segment a couple of months ago, then posted my speaking notes to my blog. Read the comments thread. An amazing amount of vitriol, hatred, and ignorance. And these people get to vote.

http://academicvc.com/2011/09/28/immigration-and-competitiveness/

Despair is a sin. Keep up the good work.

Stephen