Perves Musharraf was defeated in the Pakistani elections, and Cuba's Fidel Castro finally admitted he was too old and ill to continue playing benevolent dictator.
Maybe democracy will finally succeed in Pakistan. Musharraf was the one who undermined it with his 1999 coup, but apparently the Pakistani populace had gotten a taste of it and likes being able to elect its own leaders. Now we just have to hope that (a) the army behaves itself, and (b) the new government can deal with Pakistan's problems, particularly Muslim fundamentalists distrustful of political liberty, so that it's not too weak and susceptible to another coup.
As for Cuba, nothing's going to change immediately, of course, because Fidel's brother Raul has been in charge for nearly two years. But with the revolutionary figurehead gone, and Raul aging himself, perhaps the day is not too far away when popular sovereignty comes to Cuba.
Of course the US could help that process if we just had a president with the balls to extend diplomatic relations to Cuba. Hordes of American tourists bringing hard cash to the island would increase the local wealth, which usually seems to spur demands for political participation.
19 February 2008
18 February 2008
Pandora: Evolution in Action
I use Pandora to listen to music at work. I can set my different "radio stations" (blues, folk, punk) and each day choose whichever I'm in the mood for. But the algorithm in the software then finds music that has similarities and plays them. It's a great way to find new music that I love but had never heard of before (biggest find, Mississippi John Hurt).
But somehow my folk station and my punk station keep blending into each other. There's a process of evolutionary drift if I don't occasionally hit the thumbs-down button to cancel a song that's getting off target. Both of these stations tend to drift into psychobilly (The Cramps, Reverend Horton Heat), which I love, but then they don't necessarily get back to where they were before.
So I have to impose some directional selection on them, weeding out the "misfits" (literally--for those who know punk) and trying to retain my pure types.
AS I've said before, assuming God created everything, he'd then have to intervene perpetually if he wanted to stop evolution. Sometimes it's fun to play God.
But somehow my folk station and my punk station keep blending into each other. There's a process of evolutionary drift if I don't occasionally hit the thumbs-down button to cancel a song that's getting off target. Both of these stations tend to drift into psychobilly (The Cramps, Reverend Horton Heat), which I love, but then they don't necessarily get back to where they were before.
So I have to impose some directional selection on them, weeding out the "misfits" (literally--for those who know punk) and trying to retain my pure types.
AS I've said before, assuming God created everything, he'd then have to intervene perpetually if he wanted to stop evolution. Sometimes it's fun to play God.
17 February 2008
I'm Going to Syria
My college's Faculty Research Committee just granted my request for a research grant to travel to Syria. I haven't been this excited since I received a letter of acceptance to grad school.
I devoutly believe international travel is crucially important, and now I finally get to live up to to my own beliefs. I'm fling into Dubai, and will spend two days there before going on to Damascus. In all, I'll probably be gone about 2 weeks. I plan to see the most modern (Ski Dubai, here I come!) and most traditional (the soukhs) parts of the Arabic world. Given that my Arabic consists of knowing the alphabet, and a handful of words (street, house, coffee), I should be wonderfully lost and confused.
I haven't travelled internationally before, although I've been in 47 U.S. states and 5 Canadian provinces. (Canada isn't international, for an American, it's just our 51st, but un-united, state, where they mostly speak the same language, and the biggest difficulty is figuring out how much that liter of gas costs per gallon). Amazingly, I occasionally get students who've never traveled out of Michigan and don't have any interest in it. I don't have any interest in them, either. On the other hand, I met with a prospective student yesterday who's already spent 4 months in Thailand where she did an internship with the UN, and she's still in high school!
My wife's father is from the Netherlands, and her mom is from Indonesia. My wife--Johanna--has visited Europe many times, including a 6 week trip with her best friend when they were in their early 20s. My kids have already traveled from East Coast to West Coast, including Alaska. Two years ago we did a 4 week trip that included visiting Denali, taking an Alaskan Cruise, then renting a van and driving slowly back to Michigan. 4 weeks, and the kids were perfect little travelers, loving every minute of it. We hope to send them to study in the Netherlands, staying with cousins, when they're in high school, and I'll refuse to pay for college if they don't study abroad. My wife and I have tried to set a great example for our kids, and I can't wait to shop in the soukhs for exotic gifts for all of them.
Damascus, one of the oldest continuosly inhabited cities; the Mediterannean; the Euphrates; Christian monasteries in the mountains, within a deeply Islamic country that is officially secular. I'm so excited I can hardly sleep.
I devoutly believe international travel is crucially important, and now I finally get to live up to to my own beliefs. I'm fling into Dubai, and will spend two days there before going on to Damascus. In all, I'll probably be gone about 2 weeks. I plan to see the most modern (Ski Dubai, here I come!) and most traditional (the soukhs) parts of the Arabic world. Given that my Arabic consists of knowing the alphabet, and a handful of words (street, house, coffee), I should be wonderfully lost and confused.
I haven't travelled internationally before, although I've been in 47 U.S. states and 5 Canadian provinces. (Canada isn't international, for an American, it's just our 51st, but un-united, state, where they mostly speak the same language, and the biggest difficulty is figuring out how much that liter of gas costs per gallon). Amazingly, I occasionally get students who've never traveled out of Michigan and don't have any interest in it. I don't have any interest in them, either. On the other hand, I met with a prospective student yesterday who's already spent 4 months in Thailand where she did an internship with the UN, and she's still in high school!
My wife's father is from the Netherlands, and her mom is from Indonesia. My wife--Johanna--has visited Europe many times, including a 6 week trip with her best friend when they were in their early 20s. My kids have already traveled from East Coast to West Coast, including Alaska. Two years ago we did a 4 week trip that included visiting Denali, taking an Alaskan Cruise, then renting a van and driving slowly back to Michigan. 4 weeks, and the kids were perfect little travelers, loving every minute of it. We hope to send them to study in the Netherlands, staying with cousins, when they're in high school, and I'll refuse to pay for college if they don't study abroad. My wife and I have tried to set a great example for our kids, and I can't wait to shop in the soukhs for exotic gifts for all of them.
Damascus, one of the oldest continuosly inhabited cities; the Mediterannean; the Euphrates; Christian monasteries in the mountains, within a deeply Islamic country that is officially secular. I'm so excited I can hardly sleep.
Creationist Thinks I'm an Idiot! (My First Link!)
OK, to be fair, he didn't say I was an idiot. In fact he was not rude at all, and he was good enough to link to me, so I'm going to return the favor, as the more links you get, the more likely people are to stumble across your blog.
Collin Brendemuehl thinks my post about Guillermo Gonzales losing his tenure case" shows my wholesale intolerance for creationism.
I'd like to respond specifically to a couple of Collin's points.
And I certainly wouldn't ban creationists from the public arena. Although I would go to school board meetings and vigorously argue against them, I would stand beside them to protect their right to speak. Because freedom of speech is more important than teaching biology properly. And I have no problem with Collin having a blog to speak for creationism. That is the uncommon liberty of which I speak--the liberty to speak openly about things that are demonstrably wrong. But that doesn't include the right to get whatever job you want, despite being unqualified for it.
A final comment: I don't get why creationists are afraid of evolution. Evolution says nothing about the origins of the earth, or of life itself. Evolution only explains how life changes and develops across generations. I know Christian biologists who accept evolutionary theory, and Christian ministers who do as well. Evolution does not disprove God! It says nothing about God at all. Accepting as the basis for argument that God created the world, because mutations happen evolution would occur unless God perpetually intervened to prevent it. Yet I've never heard anyone argue that God would find it important to do that.
For the record, I'm not an atheist. I won't put the red "A" on my blog. I'm skeptical, dubious (skipping church this morning, I'll admit, although I take my kids most weeks), even agnostic, but not an atheist. Having grown up in a conservative church, I understand Christian beliefs from the inside, and I try to take them seriously. Mocking people for their beliefs is no way to debate an issue--in fact, as ironic as it is, the atheists who mock Christianity are only preaching to the choir.
Collin Brendemuehl thinks my post about Guillermo Gonzales losing his tenure case" shows my wholesale intolerance for creationism.
I'd like to respond specifically to a couple of Collin's points.
I don't know that situtation but would comment on Hanley's attitude -- that those who accept special creation might best be limited to teaching at Chrisitian undergrad colleges. So much for liberty.I teach at a Christian undergrad--well, we're not really Christian, but we are church affiliated. It's a good gig, and the prayers before every big college function don't bother me at all. And it's not that I would ban creationists from the public universities--I don't care if someone who believes in special creation teaches political philosophy, French literature, theater, art, exercise science, history, economics, etc. But not biology, because creationism isn't scientific. Remember Michael Behe at the Dover trial? He admitted that to fit his views into the realm of science, science would have to be redefined broadly enough to call astrology scientific. Michael Behe said it! Should we allow astrologers to get tenure in astronomy departments, even though they can't get published in scientific journals?
If these secularists got their way, the evangelical who accepts special creation would not be allowed into the public arena to teach astronomy, practice medicine, or even be certified to teach in high school, let alone college.I can't speak for others, only myself. I find it hard to understand how a doctor could not believe in evolution, but I don't think it would necessarily affect their performance. As long as my kids' doctor is good to them and resolves their problems, I don't care what his beliefs are. He could practice voodoo in his spare time, believe the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle, and that God will be returning to earth next year in the form of a giraffe, and I wouldn't care. And as for teaching, it all depends on what they want to teach. Creationism has not proven itself as a science. If it does, then I'll shut up and allow it to be taught as science, but since creationists refuse to follow the scientific method that every other scientist follows, I'm not going to hold my breath.
And I certainly wouldn't ban creationists from the public arena. Although I would go to school board meetings and vigorously argue against them, I would stand beside them to protect their right to speak. Because freedom of speech is more important than teaching biology properly. And I have no problem with Collin having a blog to speak for creationism. That is the uncommon liberty of which I speak--the liberty to speak openly about things that are demonstrably wrong. But that doesn't include the right to get whatever job you want, despite being unqualified for it.
A final comment: I don't get why creationists are afraid of evolution. Evolution says nothing about the origins of the earth, or of life itself. Evolution only explains how life changes and develops across generations. I know Christian biologists who accept evolutionary theory, and Christian ministers who do as well. Evolution does not disprove God! It says nothing about God at all. Accepting as the basis for argument that God created the world, because mutations happen evolution would occur unless God perpetually intervened to prevent it. Yet I've never heard anyone argue that God would find it important to do that.
For the record, I'm not an atheist. I won't put the red "A" on my blog. I'm skeptical, dubious (skipping church this morning, I'll admit, although I take my kids most weeks), even agnostic, but not an atheist. Having grown up in a conservative church, I understand Christian beliefs from the inside, and I try to take them seriously. Mocking people for their beliefs is no way to debate an issue--in fact, as ironic as it is, the atheists who mock Christianity are only preaching to the choir.
11 February 2008
Should I Sell My Vote?
Apparently it's illegal to sell or trade votes for the president, although I've never bothered to look up the relevant statute. Of course, to be precise, that's not a vote for the president, but for an elector for the president. But in a comment on a prior post I jokingly offered to sell my vote to a New Zealander. Unfortunately, he declined, so my bank account is no richer.
Nor is my conscience soothed. As I've pondered this over the last few days, it seems to me that New Zealanders, and Aussies and Brits, French, South Koreans...in short, everyone who lives in the free world, is a constituent of the U.S. President. During the Clinton impeachment, a friend of mine received a call from a former business partner in S. Korea, who asked why the Republicans were messing around with "the leader of my world." It's a good point, and one I've thought about a lot in the past decade.
I get a vote, but I'm a political scientist. I can do the math, and I know my vote simply doesn't matter. Actually, most political scientists can't quite figure that out. I had one almost punch me in the nose once because I dare to teach my students that voting is a collective action problem: we're all better off if everyone participates, since we can't have popular sovereignty otherwise, but the more people participate, the less it matters--to me personally or to the public's interest in popular sovereignty.
And then there are all these folks outside our borders, who in a real way are the President's constituents (like it or not), but who don't get a vote. So, on the off-chance any significant number of people see this blog, let me know what country you're from and who you want me to vote for. I'll count the votes of anyone who is (a) outside the U.S., and (b) in a democratic country. I'll let majority rule, and the non-U.S. constituents will at least get one vote.
Nor is my conscience soothed. As I've pondered this over the last few days, it seems to me that New Zealanders, and Aussies and Brits, French, South Koreans...in short, everyone who lives in the free world, is a constituent of the U.S. President. During the Clinton impeachment, a friend of mine received a call from a former business partner in S. Korea, who asked why the Republicans were messing around with "the leader of my world." It's a good point, and one I've thought about a lot in the past decade.
I get a vote, but I'm a political scientist. I can do the math, and I know my vote simply doesn't matter. Actually, most political scientists can't quite figure that out. I had one almost punch me in the nose once because I dare to teach my students that voting is a collective action problem: we're all better off if everyone participates, since we can't have popular sovereignty otherwise, but the more people participate, the less it matters--to me personally or to the public's interest in popular sovereignty.
And then there are all these folks outside our borders, who in a real way are the President's constituents (like it or not), but who don't get a vote. So, on the off-chance any significant number of people see this blog, let me know what country you're from and who you want me to vote for. I'll count the votes of anyone who is (a) outside the U.S., and (b) in a democratic country. I'll let majority rule, and the non-U.S. constituents will at least get one vote.
Good Video on the Laffer Curve
Cafe Hayek has a link to this nice video explanation of the Laffer Curve by Cato Institute Fellow Dan Mitchell. This is a great video because it explains the Laffer Curve concept very clearly, but it avoids the woo woo enthusiasm of some Laffer acolytes.
He states very clearly, as any good economist (as opposed to bad economists--who usually aren't economists at all, just political enthusiasts who think that an antipathy to government spending is all one needs to know about economics) that not all tax cuts pay for themselves. He even explicitly points out that tax increases will raise more revenue, if the tax rate is on the upward slope of the Laffer Curve. These are points that any competent graph reader would understand from looking at the Curve, but most woo woo types miss, or if you do point it out they stick their fingers in their ears and start singing, "la la la la, I can't heeeeaaaar you."
He also points out that only tax cuts that actually encourage productive behavior are relevant. The child tax credits I get for my three darling daughters won't create more investment, won't help the economy grow, and so reducing my taxes that way won't result in increased tax revenues.
The only point I'd argue with is his quick sidebar that "it goes without saying, of course, that a simple and fair flat tax is the best way to finance [government] expenses. It doesn't go without saying. Personally, I don't know where I stand on the flat tax idea--it's just not so simple that it goes without saying. Overall, though, for those confused by talk about the Laffer Curve--and that includes conservatives who worship the concept--this is an excellent short intro.
He states very clearly, as any good economist (as opposed to bad economists--who usually aren't economists at all, just political enthusiasts who think that an antipathy to government spending is all one needs to know about economics) that not all tax cuts pay for themselves. He even explicitly points out that tax increases will raise more revenue, if the tax rate is on the upward slope of the Laffer Curve. These are points that any competent graph reader would understand from looking at the Curve, but most woo woo types miss, or if you do point it out they stick their fingers in their ears and start singing, "la la la la, I can't heeeeaaaar you."
He also points out that only tax cuts that actually encourage productive behavior are relevant. The child tax credits I get for my three darling daughters won't create more investment, won't help the economy grow, and so reducing my taxes that way won't result in increased tax revenues.
The only point I'd argue with is his quick sidebar that "it goes without saying, of course, that a simple and fair flat tax is the best way to finance [government] expenses. It doesn't go without saying. Personally, I don't know where I stand on the flat tax idea--it's just not so simple that it goes without saying. Overall, though, for those confused by talk about the Laffer Curve--and that includes conservatives who worship the concept--this is an excellent short intro.
09 February 2008
Gonzales Loses Iowa State Tenure Case
"The Iowa Board of Regents denied ISU assistant professor of physics and astronomy Guillermo Gonzalez tenure appeal in a closed session Thursday morning."And now the IDiots will continue to cry foul. Their claim is that Gonzalez was denied tenure because he believed in intelligent design.
Well, yes. And no. It's not as simple as they'd like you to believe. (Then again, they're masters at being simplistic.)
Gonzalez was denied tenure because he didn't bring in enough research grants, and because he didn't have enough peer-reviewed publications. Iowa State's Department of Physics and Astronomy is a Ph.D. granting program. The highest standards for grant receiving and publication are found in Ph.D. granting programs. Requirements tend to be lower in programs that grant no higher than a Master's degree, and are lowest at colleges that grant only Bachelor's degrees (where often there are no grant or publication requirements at all--just a "keep your nose clean" standard for receiving tenure.)
Gonzales just didn't meet the tenure standards of a Ph.D. granting program. And it's unlikely that he could, while focusing on something as unscientific as
He'll probably land at a Bachelor's granting Christian college. There's nothing wrong with that. I work at a B.A. granting institution (with a weak denominational affiliation), I'm on the verge of receiving tenure, and I've published a fair amount, but not what would get me tenure at a Ph.D. granting school. So I don't think Gonzalez' dearth of publications is itself something to criticize, just his claim that he did enough to get tenure at Iowa State.
The ID advocates have been unable to get peer reviewed publications except through deceit and trickery. Alfred Wegener's theory of drifting crustal plates was criticized as loony, but accumulating evidence convinced everyone. The problem for ID is that they keep insisting that lack of evidence proves creation--that is, if we can't find any evidence at present for a particular feature of some organism, then we must assume it was designed. But of course the absence of evidence can never be evidence of absence. Lack of evidence proves exactly nothing except we don't at present have any evidence. If Gonzalez can't figure that out--and I bet he really can, and is just fighting to save a good job--then he's not much of a scientist anyway.
In Which I Challenge Ed Brayton to a Friendly Wager
In a post about James Dobson's claim that he'll sit out the election if John McCain is the Republican nominee., Ed Brayton calls Dobson a liar (true enough, I think), and makes the following prediction.
So I challenged Ed to a friendly wager.
And this isn't intended as a slam at Ed, who runs what I think is the best political blog on the web. Mostly I just want to put myself on record, so if I'm wrong I can't deny it (you know, like those pathetic creationists and IDiots constantly do).
...he's pretending that he'll sit out the election in order to gain maximum leverage in cutting a deal with McCain in exchange for his support...And the deal will be that when there is a Supreme Court opening, McCain picks from their short list.I could be a fool, but I agree with the Republicans who claim McCain isn't that conservative. I also think McCain knows damn well that his support is coming from the middle. So I don't think he'd commit to such a deal to get Dobson's endorsement, and I don't think he'll appoint an ultra-conservative to the Supreme Court.
So I challenged Ed to a friendly wager.
If Dobson endorses McCain,, and if McCain is elected, and if McCain gets a Supreme Court appointment, I bet he chooses a moderate. I prefer beer, scotch, or bourbon as the wager, but I don't know if Ed's a drinker--I guess I could stoop to wearing a Duke shirt if I lose.I think the odds of McCain winning are slim, so this bet would probably be a safe one for both parties.
And this isn't intended as a slam at Ed, who runs what I think is the best political blog on the web. Mostly I just want to put myself on record, so if I'm wrong I can't deny it (you know, like those pathetic creationists and IDiots constantly do).
07 February 2008
Romney: American Voters Are Surrendering in the War on Terror
Mitt Romney's a real piece of work. Here he is on Feb. 7, 2008, explaining why he's dropping out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
Let me put this as clearly as I can: Fuck you, Mitt. I not only prefer McCain to you, I prefer both Clinton and Obama to you, because not one of them has tried to hold me psychologically hostage by telling me a vote for their opponent is a vote for terrorists.
There are few things lower than accusing your political opponents of being the disloyal opposition. Samuel Johnson must have been thinking of the Mitt Romneys of his day when he said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror." (AP)Yes, if we citizens elect Clinton or Obama to the presidency, we've surrendered to the terrorists!
Let me put this as clearly as I can: Fuck you, Mitt. I not only prefer McCain to you, I prefer both Clinton and Obama to you, because not one of them has tried to hold me psychologically hostage by telling me a vote for their opponent is a vote for terrorists.
There are few things lower than accusing your political opponents of being the disloyal opposition. Samuel Johnson must have been thinking of the Mitt Romneys of his day when he said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
06 February 2008
Romney's Crocodile Tears
Super Tuesday has finally come and gone, and it wasn't so super for Mitt Romney. In West Virginia, where the Republicans actually hold a convention to select the delegates, Romney lost despite winning the first round vote. With McCain coming in third, many of his supporters shifted to Huckabee, denying Romney the victory.
Romney's campaign shed copious crocodile tears, with Romney's campaign manager complaining that McCain "cut a backroom deal." It's like Captain Renault in the film Casablanca, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here!"
What really happened is so commonplace that even us Political Scientists know about it, and we even have a name for it, strategic voting . Strategic voting is simply when you vote for someone other than your first choice.
In this case, McCain supporters, seeing that their candidate came in third on the first ballot, and that there would have to be a second ballot (because no candidate gained a majority on the first one), voted strategically on the second round. By working to defeat the candidate who was the greatest threat to McCain, they actually did vote in the way that maximized their support for McCain. They were able to look past West Virginia to the larger picture. Romney's campaign manager apparently thinks the only legitimate way to vote is for your favorite. But considering there was going to be a second ballot, that their candidate had come in third, and that they reasonably had to vote for someone other than McCain, why should they necessarily have voted for Romney instead of Huckabee?
Oh, yes, because the McCain campaign allegedly called their West Virginia folks and told them to shift to Huckabee. In other words, the candidate they supported asked them to support him strategically. If Romney's camp wouldn't have done the same, they're not noble, they're idiots. And since I don't think they are either noble or idiots, it's just crocodile tears.
Anyway, it clearly wasn't just McCain's supporters that gave Huck the victory. According to The Hill a Capitol Hill news outlet that focuses on politics, the first round of balloting resulted in:
Romney: 464 votes.
Huckabee: 375 votes.
McCain: 176 votes.
Total: 1015
The second ballot had:
Huckabee: 567 votes.
Romney: 521 votes.
Total: 1088
If you add McCain's votes to Huckabee's in the first round, you only come up with 551, not the 567 he won on the second ballot. And as you can see from the totals, there were 73 more votes in the second round than the first. Where did those extra votes come from? I don't know, but I'd guess some people sat out the first round waiting to see how the voting went. Obviously at least 14 of those also went for Huckabee (assuming that each and every one of McCain's first round votes then voted for Huckabee, and none defected to Romney). 57 went to Romney.
In short, it's a complex political process with a lot of gamesmanship and strategizing going on. Romney lost. And now he's doing the strategic thing by trying to paint the real winner--McCain--of being dirty. Predictable. Not particularly clever, but then how many options does he have?
Romney's campaign shed copious crocodile tears, with Romney's campaign manager complaining that McCain "cut a backroom deal." It's like Captain Renault in the film Casablanca, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here!"
What really happened is so commonplace that even us Political Scientists know about it, and we even have a name for it, strategic voting . Strategic voting is simply when you vote for someone other than your first choice.
In this case, McCain supporters, seeing that their candidate came in third on the first ballot, and that there would have to be a second ballot (because no candidate gained a majority on the first one), voted strategically on the second round. By working to defeat the candidate who was the greatest threat to McCain, they actually did vote in the way that maximized their support for McCain. They were able to look past West Virginia to the larger picture. Romney's campaign manager apparently thinks the only legitimate way to vote is for your favorite. But considering there was going to be a second ballot, that their candidate had come in third, and that they reasonably had to vote for someone other than McCain, why should they necessarily have voted for Romney instead of Huckabee?
Oh, yes, because the McCain campaign allegedly called their West Virginia folks and told them to shift to Huckabee. In other words, the candidate they supported asked them to support him strategically. If Romney's camp wouldn't have done the same, they're not noble, they're idiots. And since I don't think they are either noble or idiots, it's just crocodile tears.
Anyway, it clearly wasn't just McCain's supporters that gave Huck the victory. According to The Hill a Capitol Hill news outlet that focuses on politics, the first round of balloting resulted in:
Romney: 464 votes.
Huckabee: 375 votes.
McCain: 176 votes.
Total: 1015
The second ballot had:
Huckabee: 567 votes.
Romney: 521 votes.
Total: 1088
If you add McCain's votes to Huckabee's in the first round, you only come up with 551, not the 567 he won on the second ballot. And as you can see from the totals, there were 73 more votes in the second round than the first. Where did those extra votes come from? I don't know, but I'd guess some people sat out the first round waiting to see how the voting went. Obviously at least 14 of those also went for Huckabee (assuming that each and every one of McCain's first round votes then voted for Huckabee, and none defected to Romney). 57 went to Romney.
In short, it's a complex political process with a lot of gamesmanship and strategizing going on. Romney lost. And now he's doing the strategic thing by trying to paint the real winner--McCain--of being dirty. Predictable. Not particularly clever, but then how many options does he have?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)