The Dish

Eric, I take the point that you’re making about the forum having been designed to reduce confrontation and mis-steps and just give people a chance to talk.

That being said, I did think that Jonathan Capehart, if not Melissa Etheridge (and obviously I know the response that caused the outcry was to her question), was being tougher with Richardson than with other candidates, from the get-go.  I’m certainly not saying that Richardson didn’t screw it up, and big time (I made that point in my original post, remember), but I am saying that I’m not convinced there wasn’t some preference on the part of the individual questioners heading into the forum, which may have impacted on how they handled each candidate throughout the whole 15 minutes.

For example, I think Hillary Clinton got off incredibly lightly when she said that her reasons for not supporting gay marriage were "personal."  I certainly wondered what she meant by that, and I certainly didn’t get close to finding out.  Much greater attempts seemed to be made to nail down Obama and Edwards about why they didn’t support gay marriage than were made with her, and whether that was intentional, or just accidentally how it rolled on the night, I do think that there were differences in terms of how the candidates were treated.

Richardson bungled it pretty badly, and without being specifically  pushed to a point where he was bound to say something stupid.  But I did get the impression that Hillary could have said "I don’t support gay marriage because men making out kinda freaks me out," and the panel would very possibly have been like, "OK, let’s move on."

Libertarians for Romney— now that’s a pretty good joke if you ask me!  The best bit about this post is that Jason Bonham, Romney fanatic and one of the main movers of the pro-Romney message online, claims that Romney doesn’t want his health care plan rolled out nationwide.  I guess Jason wasn’t paying attention to, say, that interview with that waitress in New Hampshire, where the obvious message was "elect me, and I’ll make sure you in New Hampshire have access to the health care plan I instituted in Massachusetts" (which, uh, as President as opposed to, say, Governor of New Hampshire, he could only really achieve by rolling his plan out nationwide– obviously what he has in mind anyway, if you ever ask him about it point blank, as I have).  Or maybe Romney was just saying that since he’s such a great problem-solver, and his health care plan was the answer to everyone’s prayers in Massachusetts, that waitress should vote for him because he’s clever and strong enough to come up with a different, less big-government, less Ted Kennedy-approved plan when in the White House– even though he couldn’t manage that when back in Boston (but remember, his health care plan is great– he keeps saying so in things like debates, which perhaps Jason doesn’t watch).

I received an email about a post written today by some chap called Aaron Goldstein, which I must draw to your attention for the sheer insanity and idiocy that it entails.  It’s on the subject of Rudy Giuliani and his need to "shore up" social conservatives if he is to win the 2008 GOP nomination.  Its basic proposal is that Giuliani announce after Labor Day that Rick Santorum will be his running mate.

Rick Santorum, ladies and gentlemen.

The argument in favor of this monumentally stupid idea goes thusly:

Santorum is Mr. Social Conservative.  Perhaps no American conservative personifies social conservatism better than Rick Santorum, who is currently a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C..  There is no ambivalence about his positions concerning abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia and a host of other issues dear to social conservatives in the United States.  His positions more than offset Rudy Giuliani’s moderate to liberal social inclinations.  Naming Santorum as his running mate would do a great deal to assuage social conservatives who might have reservations not only about Giuliani’s social positions but might also have reservations about his spotty history as a husband and a father.

[…]

While Giuliani and Santorum might agree to disagree on specific social issues they are perfectly in synch with each other when it comes to Islamic fascism and terrorist acts committed in its name.

[…]

Kathryn Jean Lopez highlighted the importance of Giuliani giving his running mate “an important domestic-policy portfolio.” I cannot think of a more important domestic policy portfolio than combating illegal immigration.  While Giuliani opposed the Senate’s efforts to address illegal immigration earlier this year his position on that issue is somewhat compromised in that New York City was (and remains) a sanctuary city.  Consequently, some conservatives might have reservations about Giuliani’s willingness to enforce immigration laws.  This is where Santorum comes in.  Santorum has long opposed illegal immigration and needless to say was not fond of the Senate’s efforts. Santorum wants the United States to enforce its existing immigration laws and strongly opposes any kind of amnesty.

Now, Mr Goldstein does note some of the downsides of Santorum being stuck on a Giuliani ticket, but what amazes me is that he would even contemplate that this could possibly be a good idea given how numerous and serious the arguments against Santorum having no place on any presidential ticket, let alone Rudy’s are.

Goldstein comments that "Rick Santorum is one of those people in life about whom almost no one has a neutral opinion.  You either love him or hate him," and further, that "Should Santorum be named as Giuliani’s running mate, Rudy can kiss many independent and moderate votes goodbye.  Santorum’s rhetoric on same sex marriage and abortion might be music to the ears of social conservatives it will be an anathema to this bloc of voters."

Uh, yeah.  Here’s the thing.  I am a Republican.  I vote Republican.  I’m pretty conservative on everything but abortion and gay marriage, actually.  I’m not a Rockefeller, liberal Republican type.  And yet I can assure you right now that anyone who sticks Santorum anywhere on their ticket is going to really struggle to get my vote.  And the votes of libertarian-leaning Republicans who hate the guy for being about the most out-there, pro-government-meddling social con around– the guy wanted federal money spent on marriage counseling for couples contemplating divorce and a whole host of other absurdly big government, "government can fix our families" initiatives that have caused even socially conservative libertarian types to scream blue murder repeatedly. 

If Santorum goes on anyone’s ticket, oh sure, they may get the social con vote, but they won’t get any independents or moderates (which, as 2006– and, uh, Sabtorum’s race itself– showed us, both parties need in order to win), and they won’t get the fiscal conservative-only/libertarian-leaning vote from within the GOP (which is still a good portion of it), either.  Basically, they’ll do about as well in 2008 as Walter Mondale did in 1984.  Which is why, regardless of what this Goldstein chap thinks about the worth of adding Santorum as a running mate, no one will be doing it unless they a) have an IQ of 6 or b) have all the political acumen and sense of your average farm animal.

In an earlier post, I suggested that Michael Gerson may have been the biggest phony ever to walk the halls of the White House. (See the September issue of The Atlantic and today’s Washington Post.) Of course, this was meant as hyperbole. Considering the massive number of phonies who have worked on the White House staff, Gerson probably isn’t even in the Top 10.

(In the days when I worked there late in the Reagan presidency, it would have been a lot easier to count the non-phonies than all the phonies. One anecdote: I knew people no higher in the pecking order than I was in the mid-level who would never leave their offices until they knew that the president had left the Oval Office for the night, just in case he needed them. The fact that he had never once summoned them, nor the extreme unlikelihood that he ever would, nor their easy availability by phone through the impressive White House switchboard, had any effect on their actions. It was really all about letting others, especially their subordinates, think they were more important than they really were. In actuality, among the hundreds of White House staffers, probably fewer than a dozen were genuinely important enough to worry about such things.)

Anyway, the point of this post of that if Rudy Giuliani becomes the next president, he may become the biggest phony. According to an article in the Village Voice that has been totally ignored by conservative bloggers, his one claim to fame of being The Man on 9/11 is totally without foundation. For example, he stupidly insisted that New York City’s crisis center be located in the World Trade Center, which had already been attacked once, rather than some safer location in Brooklyn. Apparently, he wanted someplace convenient to hook up with his then girlfriend (now wife). Consequently, the center was worthless at the exact point it was most needed.

There’s lots of other stuff in the article as well. Even if some of it is overstated, it still confirms my growing feeling that Giuliani is the worst of a bad bunch running for the Republican presidential nomination. It’s like he has all of George W. Bush’s bad qualities except that he is smart. This is a bad combination, in my opinion. The last thing we want is a president who competently implements disastrous policies; that will just make them even more disastrous.

"Flames". "Clue."

Two years ago, I first saw problems arising in financial markets. The problem was that the Federal Reserve had been easy for a long time in order help get the economy moving after the recession of 2001. This led to overexpansion of certain sectors of the economy that could not be sustained without a continuation of the easy money policy. In 2005, the Fed began reversing its easy money policy. This inevitably meant that those sectors–in this case, housing–that were dependent on easy money would likely crash. As I wrote in an August 2005 column:

"The problem here is that just because the Fed is raising rates gradually, the impact will not necessarily be gradual. It could come quite abruptly. Think of a balloon. Whether you blow it up slowly or fast, at some point it is still going to burst. The same thing oftentimes occurs with monetary policy. It may appear that nothing is going on for a long time and then, suddenly, something dramatic happens to show that monetary policy is working as expected."

I became very concerned by my analysis, even to the point of shorting the market in anticipation that my view would soon become widespread and lead to a market correction. And then nothing happened. The market sloughed off problems in the housing market and among subprime lenders. When I would talk to Wall Street-types, I was assured that things were under control. Everything was carefully hedged. The balloon wasn’t going to explode, I was told. It would hiss a little air and everything would be fine.

Contrary to my expectations, the market went up. I closed my short positions, swallowed my losses, and concluded that my analysis was incorrect. Well, I should have had more confidence in myself, because the chickens have been coming home to roost this week exactly as I predicted two years ago.

One point I am trying to make is that to be successful in the stock market, it is not enough to understand fundamental trends and be correct in your forecast. There’s also the critical problem of timing. If you are too far ahead of the pack, as I was in 2005, the information is essentially valueless. In fact, it can be counterproductive, as it was in my case. Even if I had held my short position all this time, I still would have lost money because even after the steep decline this week, the S&P 500 index is still more than 1,500 points above where it was two years ago. I still would have lost money.

Over the years, I have observed lots of investors and forecasters making similar mistakes, so I know I am in good company. The trick, as best I can tell, is not to be too much smarter than the market, but just a little smarter. If you are too smart, you move too soon and you end up losing money even though you were basically correct in your analysis. If you are only a little bit smarter, you figure out what’s going on just before everyone else does. There’s a great deal of money to be made with that kind of knowledge.

Over at PB.com, as regular readers know, we intersperse cutting-edge legal analysis that not infrequently is cited in judicial opinions and right-of-center punditry that has been called a "strong, respected, and demonstrably conservative voice" (although, I must admit, has also been called things I don’t care to repeat), with wine tasting notes, recipes, and general culinary commentary. Being a 57% feminist and, if I may so, a pretty good cook, for most of our 21 years of marriage my share of household chores has included the grocery shopping and cooking.

On the menu tonight was rack of lamb and potato-onion gratin (modified from a recent Bon Appetit issue), with generic veggies and, of couse, a good red wine.

Crusted Rack of Lamb

• 1 1-¼ lb 8 bone rack of lamb
• ¾ cup panko bread crumbs
• 1/3 cup finely grated Parmesan cheese
• 2 cloves garlic, roughly chopped
• 1 tsp onion powder
• 1 tsp dried thyme
• 2 tablespoons fresh mint, roughly chopped
• 2 tablespoons fresh rosemary leaves, roughly chopped
• 2 tablespoons fresh Italian parsley, roughly chopped
• 1 tablespoon Dijon mustard
• olive oil
• salt
• pepper

French the rack, making sure to remove all the fat and connective tissue. Yes, it’s painful given what you paid for the rack, but you really don’t want fat or gristle in the finished product. Besides, your dogs will love the trimmings. (If you lack dogs but grind your own meat, freeze the trimmings and save for the next time you make meatloaf. If you neither have dogs nor grind your own meat, please accept my sincere condolences.) Season the rack with salt and pepper (both sides, please).

Combine the bread crumbs, cheese, garlic, onion powder, and the dried and fresh herbs in your Cuisinart mini-prep processor and pulse until the herbs have been well-chopped and the texture is something like that of dry couscous. Set aside.

Heat your Calphalon 12-inch non-stick frying pan over medium-high heat for 1 minute. Add enough olive oil to coat the pan very lightly (use a "pure" or "virgin" olive oil, not extra virgin olive oil, which has too low a smoke point). Sear the rack of lamb on both sides; about 4 minutes per side, until you get good carmelization. Transfer the lamb to a roasting pan with a rack. Allow to cool briefly. Coat the meat on both sides with the mustard, press the bread-cheese-herb mix into the mustard on both sides. Spritz with a spray olive oil.

Roast in a 425-degree oven for 25 minutes. When done, allow to rest for 10 minutes before carving.

Potato-Onion Gratin

• 2 lbs red skinned boiling potatoes, peeled and sliced thin
• 2 Maui sweet onions
• 2 sprigs fresh thyme
• 2 springs (about 4 inch) fresh rosemary
• 3 cloves garlic chopped very fine
• 1 tsp fresh rosemary leaves, finely chopped
• 1 tsp fresh thyme leaves, stripped and chopped fine
• 2 tsp fresh Italian parsley, finely chopped
• ¼ cup grated Parmesan cheese
• ½ cup half-and-half
• 1 cup low sodium organic chicken stock
• olive oil
• butter
• salt
• pepper

Heat your Calphalon 12-inch non-stick frying pan over medium-high heat for 1 minute. Add onions and thyme and rosemary sprigs. Season with salt and pepper. Saute for 7 minutes or until onions have softened and are just starting to turn golden. Do NOT let the onions turn brown! Add garlic and chopped herbs. Saute 3 more minutes, but do NOT let the garlic or onions turn brown! Remove from heat. Remove and discard the thyme and rosemary sprigs. Let cool briefly.

Spritz your Pyrex 8 inch square baking pan with an olive oil spray. Layer 1/3 of the potato slices on the bottom. Season with salt and pepper. Add half the onion mix. Sprinkle with half the Parmesan cheese. Top with 1/3 of the potato slices. Season with salt and pepper. Add the remaining half of the onion mix. Sprinkle with the remaining half of the Parmesan cheese. Top with the remaining 1/3 of the potato slices. Pour the half and half over. Pour the chicken stock over until the liquid comes up almost to the top of the potatoes (you may need more or less of the stock called for in the recipe). Cover the pan with foil.

Put the pan in a preheated 350 degree oven and bake for 30 minutes. Remove the foil and continue baking for another 30 minutes (add 10 minutes if you like your potatoes extra mushy, subtract 10 if you like them extra crunchy). Remove from the oven and allow to rest 10 minutes.

Finishing Touches

My cooking philosophy is to limit the hard work to no more than 2 dishes. Everything else gets short cuts. Tonight, I heated up Kato’s Green Peppercorn sauce, which has a lot of mustard in it, as a sauce for the lamb. As a veggie side, I microwaved a package of Eat Smart’s broccoli, cauliflower, and carrot medley.

I plated by napping the lower half of our 10 inch square plates with the sauce and topping with 2 double rib cut chops per plate. A healthy portion of the potatoes went in the upper right corner, with the veggies in the upper left corner.

Yum.

To drink, I served a 1999 Chateau Montelena Calistoga Cuvee, a Cabernet Sauvignon-based red wine from the Napa Valley. Unlike Chateau Montelena’s justly famed Estate Cabernet Sauvignon, the Calistoga Cuvee generally is not a wine for the cellar, but I usually set aside a couple of bottles to see how they do (following famed California wine critic Bob Thompson’s view that California Cabernet is usually at its prime at age 8). Tonight’s bottle had thrown a lot of sediment, including a considerable amount of tartaric crystals, so it required decanting. The bouquet was somewhat muted, but on the palate it offered an impressive mix of flavors suggesting black cherries, tobacco, cedar, and oriental spices. I have one bottle left in my cellar, which I’ll probably allow to age until 2010 or so to see if it develops some more.

To understand just how bad Richardson’s performance last night was, Liz, it’s important to realize this: the event was likely never planned around the possibility of a candidate truly losing.

The nature of the Logo forum was that the candidates were facing a group essentially pledged to support the Democratic nominee. The hosts might have given a candidate a tough question or two in order to put them on the spot, but they would not have asked anything intentionally damaging. After all, the same gay activists who arranged this thing would not want to be seen publicly attacking/humiliating a candidate, only to have to publicly support the candidate next year. It simply wasn’t in the HRC’s interest to be tough.

Think about the format. You had a nice Oprah-style couch, Melissa Etheridge fawning over the candidates, and the they all took questions one at a time instead of together. This way Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel didn’t have the opportunity to attack the others for not endorsing gay marriage. This was set up to be just a series of softball questions, masquerading as a genuine political dialogue.

This all meant that in order for a candidate to be damaged at this forum, he/she had to really screw it up, bringing forth a gaffe that angered the folks there to no end. And Richardson managed to do it.

It was a hell of an accomplishment.

Via Wonkette:

On Wednesday, Romney held one of his “Ask Mitt Anything” town halls at a restaurant outside Iowa City, where prospective Romney supporters were treated to a free buffet. And we’re not talking sandwiches or finger food. Think Las Vegas style: shrimp cocktail, platters of steak, pasta salad, mashed potatoes and at least 10 different kinds of dessert, including strawberry cheesecake, brownies and multi-layer chocolate cake.

Yeah, yeah. Well, all I can say is, they aren’t getting seared ahi tuna like the people who turned up to vote for Mitt in the last straw poll getting covered by the AP. And me. Who didn’t vote for him in said straw poll. Despite seared ahi tuna. Which my friend Jack ate.

I suspect Richardson did do himself significant damage last night with the "choice" comment.  And I think that’s too bad.  This is a guy who even back in the 1990’s when, from what I can recall, most Democrats as well as Republicans were sticking by Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and he didn’t.  The fact that he was on the right side of that one, from the gay community’s perspective, way back then (unlike Hillary and her hubby, who a lot of people in the gay community seem to like, which baffles me) tells me something about what he really thinks.  So does his record of supporting civil unions as Governor.

Perhaps I’m just feeling sorry for Bill at the moment…  I will admit that he is by far the most palatable Democrat from my perspective in the entire race.  By far.