The Chicago Tribune made a boo-boo.
Mona Charen considers an alternative to the current Republican primary process.
Jeffrey H. Anderson and Jay Cost believe so. Writing in the summer issue ofNational Affairs, they argue that the current primary system arose by “accident and afterthought.” It was actually designed by the Democrats — an effort by the New Left to subvert the power of Big Labor, southern pols, and big-city mayors (the figures who occupied the storied “smoke-filled rooms”). Hubert Humphrey became the Democratic nominee in 1968 without entering a single primary. The reformers proposed more caucuses, which could be dominated by activists. The old guard pushed back with demands for primaries. They compromised on a combination of the two. Republicans basically went along for the ride, agreeing to hold their own caucuses and primaries on the same day, for convenience.
The result is a carnival that is absurdly long and demanding. Serious candidates commit to no less than two years of full-time fundraising and campaigning. This ridiculous schedule virtually excludes candidates who have important jobs (governors, cabinet secretaries), and it offers unfortunate advantages to the independently wealthy and those with connections to the wealthy, and also to the new mandarin class: the consultants.
Anderson and Cost argue that “the current mess” also allows fringe candidates with no money and no reasonable chance of success to indulge in vanity campaigns that elevate their profiles while diminishing the process as a whole.
Nathan Harden, her National Review coworker, doesn’t care for a new Math textbook.
I’m looking forward to the next Republican presidential debates.
Nate Silver’s honesty may indicate why he has some enemies among political pundits.
Kentucky prosecutors are doing something dumb.
The Bradley Manning verdict serves as a compromise. He still faces a lot of jail time.
What Would Spidey Do? 