|Turned up to eleven: Fair and Balanced|
Sunday, March 10, 2002
accused by Andrew Hofer of defending W's steel tariffs. Nothing could be further from the truth, although I did start the blog entry (3 down) with that in mind. I went a bit esoteric on y'all, but my point was just about avoiding hidebound ideology (Free Markets for all, Free Markets for none) as opposed to the more utilitarian approach (Free Markets for some, little American Flags for others). For the records, I think the steel tariffs were probably a bad play for W, since they may ignite a trade war, without the return on investment of added support in the Rust Belt. The unions are too strong on the economic front, and his support comes from the culture war dividend in that part of the country. I was also thinking about the California Gubernatorial Race in that post, although I didn't mention it. It seems to me that the California GOP is not viewing this in a constructive manner; they seem determined to go down with the ship. Californians are overwhelmingly pro-choice, moderately pro-Death Penalty, pretty pro-gun control. They are also for (surprise!) lower taxes. It seems to me, if you want to win an election, nominating someone whose views coincide with those of the majority of people is a pretty good start. If you nominate someone who is sure to lose, you have nothing except your pride. Doesn't seem like a good strategy to me.