Deep South primaries

Looks like ignorant prejudice has edged past shameless pandering. Greed ran third.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact:

19 thoughts on “Deep South primaries”

  1. In the battle between Big Block of Cheese, Cheesy Grits, and Snot Cheese, Cheese won.

  2. No matter how many comments this post generates, I just can’t imagine any better than ShadowFox. ShadowFox ftw!

  3. Come on now y’all
    don’t go giving Mitt
    no guff
    simply cause dem grits
    ain’t agre’in wit him!

    Leave that poor boy alone
    soes he can learn to hunt
    better as he’s on dis here

  4. Well, the George Wallace-Noam Chomsky ticket ran a distant 4th. You’d think a segregation/isolation platform would do better.

    1. Your comment would make more sense if Noam Chomsky were an isolationist (I’d say that anti-imperialism is often a part of isolationism but does not include other important and disreputable aspects of isolationism, notably the xenophobia, and that Chomsky is anti-imperialist while Paul is isolationist), and would make more sense if Ron Paul had a monopoly on the political use of racism in this Republican primary, a position that rather flies in the face of Islamophobic statements and dogwhistles from both Santorum and Gingrich.

      1. Well, it was one of my glibber comments. Give me some poetic license for humor sake. I have enough posts over at the other blog where I must be the humorless civil rights realist.

        I don’t disagree with you by in large…though I would say Ron Paul’s newsletters put him in another league, and that Paul does appear to be genuinely anti-imperialist.

  5. I find it interesting that in both states there was, essentially, a three-way tie.
    One third of Republicans in both states could stomach neither Santorum nor Gingrich.
    If Santorum eventually gets the nomination I wonder if there will be a emergence of Obama Republicans. Sort of the reverse of the famous Reagan Democrats. Or maybe anyone so inclined will have already moved in the “Independent” column.

  6. Fortunately it doesn’t matter who wins the Republican nomination (the ignorant racist, the greedy narcissist, or the shameless panderer), since President Obama is a cinch to win re-election, right?

    1. Intrade contract for Obama’s reelection today: 61%. Looks about right. That’s before any real campaigning, which Obama is demonstrably very good at. Barring economic disasters (including an Iran war started by Netanyahu and subsequent oil price spike), or an act of imbecile violence (also not to be excluded, cf. Giffords) I’d say Obama’s reelection is not a cinch at this point but likely. The GOP candidate matters a lot (a) for control of Congress in Obama’s second term and his ability to do anything but prune the Rose Garden and veto stuff, (b) the learning curve of the GOP – doubling down on nonsense or regression towards sanity. Santorum would no doubt be better from these perspectives; however there is the low but nonzero chance he might win.

      1. Look, at some level I’m as excited as the next guy about the Republicans re-enacting a Goldwater debacle (or if you prefer a McGovern debacle) and nominating someone so obviously out of the mainstream that the underlying currents of the party are revealed in a way that disgraces it for a generation or two. (Why the near-Great Depression we just barely avoided hasn’t been enough in itself to accomplish that remains a great mystery to me.) But the risk is always there that the wrong guy may win; and also I think there’s some civic benefit in the other direction in finding out that even the Republicans can’t stomach, in the end, nominating someone like Santorum or Gingrich.

        Also stop personalizing the situation with Iran. The Iraq War wasn’t decided solely by G W Bush, or even Cheney. For better or worse it was the decision of a large number of our leadership including our Congressional leadership. If Israel decided to do something, it wouldn’t be Netanyahu by himself. It would be the joint decision of fairly large number of people including especially Barak among them; democratically elected all.

        1. I stand corrected: read “the Netanyahu government”. Personalities (such as Netanhahu and Barak) and the leadership they offer, do matter in a democracy; aren’t there as many former pillars of the Israeli security establishment writing dovish op-eds in Haaretz as hawkish ones? Bibi is one of the very few people in the world who could ensure Obama’s defeat.

          1. As I understand it, the Prime Minister does not play quite the same role in Israel that the President does in the US; the PM is not the boss of the executive branch but one of many members of the Cabinet that was appointed by the Knesset. Which means, for example, that if Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (who makes Netanyahu look like a dove) does something titanically stupid, Netanyahu can’t just fire him.

      2. I don’t buy the “learning” meme about the positive result of a GOP debacle in November. It’s a fallacy of composition.

        The rabid loons currently ascendant in the GOP will learn nothing. Eventually there will be some more centrist leadership that attracts a following. Perhaps some midwestern governor. But it will be a more or less random event that brings new and more moderate members into the party – not learning by the existing party members.

        1. Like the Bourbons the GOP will learn nothing. Unlike the Bourbons the GOP will forget everything.


    People prefer all of the above options to the policies of those who continue to insist that quantitative easing was good idea. Obviously, numbers can sometimes be overwhelming for some who would call themselves “economists”.

    Also, if you constantly delete entries on a blog you compromise the blogs integrity, which all REAL journalists know (who are not frauds). If you continue to alter the content of the blog, that’s actually called propaganda.

Comments are closed.