…meet Michael Moore!”

Ouch.

Now, what was I doing?

One would think so from the news:

From an article entitled “Romney Slipping in South Carolina, holds just 2-point lead over Gingrich” [emphasis mine]:

Despite a historic sweep of the first two nominating contests in the GOP field, Mitt Romney holds just a two percentage-point lead in South Carolina, his smallest lead of 2012.

Romney is the favorite of 23 percent of South Carolina voters, narrowly edging Newt Gingrich’s 21 percent, according to the latest poll from Insider Advantage…

The numbers could indicate that Gingrich’s aggressive strategy — which has included controversial attacks on Romney’s business and abortion records — is gaining him traction by hurting the GOP front-runner.

In the three other major South Carolina polls completed in the new year, Romney was earning 37 percent, 27 percent and 30 percent, according to Real Clear Politics — meaning his 23 percent in the latest poll marks a precipitous decline.

And from an article entitled “Gingrich Surging in South Carolina” we have [emphasis mine]:

The InsiderAdvantage poll of South Carolina likely Republican primary voters shows Newt Gingrich surging.

There’s plenty more where that came from—article after article. But I like to do research, and my research tells me something interesting about Romeny’s support in South Carolina, and especially that particular pollster’s (“Insider Advantage”) figures.

Take a look and you’ll see that this is Romney’s record in South Carolina in previous Insider Advantage polls:

10/16/11
Romney 16
Gingrich 8 [this was before Gingrich's boomlet when Cain ran into trouble]

11/8/11
Romney 16
Gingrich 19 [this was about a week after the Cain sexual harassment story broke]

11/28/11
Romney 15
Gingrich 38 [this was very shortly before Cain dropped out of the race]

12/18/11
Romney 19
Gingrich 31

1/11/12
Romney 23
Gingrich 21

If you study the South Carolina poll results over time—and not just the Insider Advantage polls, either—you’ll see that Gingrich owned South Carolina from the time Cain started to fade until right after Iowa, a period of a little over two months. Then Romney came into a brief (about a week long) ascendancy, a post-Iowa bounce—but not in any Insider Advantage poll, because none were taken in South Carolina by that pollster post-Iowa till now. The previous most recent Insider Advantage poll in South Carolina (December 18) showed Newt with a commanding lead over Romney; the new Insider Advantage poll there shows gains for Romney and losses for Gingrich.

So who’s “surging,” and who’s dropping “precipitously?” One could just as easily make a case that the answer is the opposite of what all the stories allege, because the stories are comparing apples and oranges—the Insider Advantage polls with other polls—and haven’t paid attention to the trends over time.

Now it’s certainly possible that Gingrich will be surging in South Carolina, and that Romney is dropping precipitously. Attack ads often work. And of course, polls are hardly a perfect measure of anything. But they’re the best measure we have of public sentiment leading up to an election, and these polls show that Romney was never popular in South Carolina until the beginning of January (after Iowa), and we have no after-Iowa Insider Advantage polls with which to compare the latest results.

By the way, how reliable is Insider Advantage as a pollster? I dug up some old polls for comparison and (for example) on December 18, 2011, Insider Advantage had Romney “imploding” in Iowa:

GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney’s decision to campaign negatively in Iowa appears to have backfired, with a new Newsmax-InsiderAdvantage poll showing the former Massachusetts governor plummeting to fourth place in the Hawkeye State — a swift decline that pollster Matt Towery [of Insider Advantage] describes as “imploding.”

Romney’s lead in New Hampshire is evaporating as well, Towery adds.

If you look at other polls around that same time in New Hampshire, you’ll see the Insider Advantage is an outlier, understating Romney’s total compared to the other polls. And then there’s this from Nate Silver, one of the few writers who seems to have done his homework:

InsiderAdvantage has a mixed track record and rates fairly poorly in the FiveThrityEight pollster ratings, which is one reason to interpret these numbers with some care. In addition, Matt Towery, the head of InsiderAdvantage, formerly served as the head of Mr. Gingrich’s political organization from 1992 until Mr. Gingrich left Congress.

Let me repeat, because I want to make it crystal clear: this post isn’t about trying to prove that Romney’s doing well in South Carolina right now. I await further polls on this; I really don’t know. My point is the odd spin so many in the media have given this particular Insider Advantage poll, and their lack of ability and/or desire to look at the bigger picture.

[NOTE: I want to point out the clever little way in which the Justin Sink, the author of the very first article I quote in the post, tries to subtly guide the reader when he writes "[Romney's] smallest lead of 2012.” It is certainly true, but how many readers will stop to think that 2012 is not even 2 weeks old? How many will go back and see that, for several recent months in 2011 and right up till January of 2012, Romney didn’t lead in South Carolina at all, Gingrich did?]

…of Western Europe:

Standard & Poor’s will cut the credit ratings of Italy, Spain and Portugal by two notches and downgrade France and Austria by one notch, a French newspaper said Friday, without citing its sources.

Yes, there is other news in the world besides the Republican primaries.

…parle français très bien.

Avec son propre petard:

[NOTE: I don't speak French. I did this with the help of Babelfish, and you can let me know if it makes a particle of sense.]

[ADDENDUM: If you doubt that this is backfiring on Newt, just take a look at the comments here.]

I almost feel I need to apologize for writing so much about this, but the Gingrich/Perry v Romney/Bain business has fascinated me far more than I expected it would, and much more than the usual campaign imbroglio. I think the reason is that it conjures up a host of deeper issues to ponder—about capitalism and free enterprise in general, and about the business of finance and how that fits into the mix.

So I may come out with quite a few posts related to this before it’s done. Not that I expect it to be done all that soon. And even if the Republicans start leaving the topic alone (which I doubt), the Democrats will be sure to pick it up if Romney is nominated. Of that you can be certain, if you can be certain of anything at all in this election.

Much of the brouhaha about Gingrich’s (and to a lesser extent, Perry’s) recent attacks on Bain’s tenure have centered on statements about looting and vulture capitalism. But these recent remarks by Gingrich in South Carolina about Romney and Bain had a somewhat different focus [emphasis mine]:

I think it’s funny that on the one hand [Romney] wants to run around touting his record, on other hand if anybody asks a question about his record, he hides behind an entire framework and to question the facts is to be anti-capitalist. That is nonsense — baloney is the term I think I was using the other morning. The fact is, we have a right to know. We have a right to know what happened at Goldman Sachs, we have a right to to know what happened with trillions of dollars in New York. We have a right to know what happens when companies go bankrupt. I think the country would like to know. And if we’re going to run a presidential campaign on a record, the record has to be open to review. Now this is not anti-capitalism. That is the smoke screen of those who are afraid to be accountable.

Just so you don’t think this “people’s right to know” meme was a momentary thing for Newt, he also said [emphasis mine]:

I am for entrepreneurship, but I am also for the American people’s right to understand how the games are being played: Are they fair to the American people, or are the deals being cut on behalf of Wall Street institutions and very rich people?

I’ve read that last statement of Gingrich’s several times, and it’s hard to escape the conclusion that he is suggesting that the deals should give some general “fairness” and benefit to the “American people” as a whole, rather than profit to the “Wall Street institutions” and the “very rich people” who populate them. I just can’t parse the statement any other way.

This actually doesn’t seem like a fiscally conservative notion or a capitalist one. What does Gingrich mean when he says that Bain or similar companies shouldn’t cut deals “on behalf” of themselves? Why not? Because they are “very rich” already? Should they make no profit at all? How much would be too much? And who gets to decide where to draw the line?

I keep saying that I’m no financial expert, and I’m not. But I was under the impression that capitalism and free markets were supposed to work this way: first and foremost, people work very hard to make money for themselves. In the process, if they start a company and grow and manage it well they make money not only for themselves, but for their stockholders too if stock is involved. They also provide wages and salaries to employees, and a service to the general public (the “American people”?): the company’s products, or whatever else it is that’s being offered, are bought and used if they are good enough and reasonably enough priced. Thus, it’s competition and the profit motive that end up benefiting us as a whole—with no significant sacrifice of liberty, and with the idea that everyone has an opportunity to make it although not everyone will.

Of course, it doesn’t always work out perfectly, or even nearly so. But built into the deal is that companies will sometimes do poorly, and then sometimes they will fail. When they’re on the cusp of failure, or just not doing very well, other companies (such as Bain, for example) may be asked to come in and evaluate the situation and do what’s necessary to save the struggling company, which often involves implementing rather Draconian measures. If that doesn’t work, the troubled company can go under. That means the loss of all the jobs there, not just some. In the process, the turnaround company often makes money for its pains (why else would it engage in the endeavor?), although it sometimes loses money because the entire undertaking is inherently very risky. That’s why not everybody attempts this sort of thing, and not everyone can make a profit at it when they do.

Certain transactions along the way are supposed to be open to public scrutiny. And of course, those who break the law in the process of doing business are supposed to be pursued and apprehended. But generally there are certain restrictions on that “right to know” that’s so dear to Newt, limits that protect the companies’ ability to do business:

Bain has blocked many of the avenues that would enable reporters to get information on their own, declining to give The Wall Street Journal a list of the companies it has invested in (“citing privacy reasons”) or even any information about when its involvement with its investments ended.

It’s not clear how much of a choice Bain has about what it can disclose. Private equity companies often tend to have confidentiality agreements with their investors (Bain would not comment on what agreements it has). Several equity experts interviewed for this story thought any disclosures from Bain were likely to spook its investors.

The private equity business model is based on taking companies out of the public markets, where reporting requirements are strict and investors punishing, making changes that will hopefully make them more profitable and then selling them or taking them public through an IPO.

The part that happens behind the curtain is not always pretty, and private equity firms have learned over the years that it’s hard to tell a complicated story in the media.

You better believe it.

So, do we have “a right to know what happened when companies go bankrupt [and companies such as Bain takes over in the private equity business],” as Gingrich insists? And how would he suggest that such a right be enforced? And what about those confidentiality agreements? Does he think they should be outlawed? And is that anti-capitalist?

This caught my attention:

Given the nation’s economic condition, Mr. Romney’s experience at Bain Capital has become central to his narrative for Campaign 2012. At a time when jobs are the issue, the narrative goes, voters ought to entrust the country to somebody with real experience in the private sector where jobs are created.

That’s apparently going to be part of Romney’s “multi-pronged” approach to the Bain charges:

They’ll start with advertisements featuring employees of companies started and rescued by Bain telling their stories — a direct response to the documentary released by the pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC that features employees of four companies closed by Bain that brutally slams Romney as a job killer…“For every scare story that they try to present related to the governor’s experience in the private sector and free enterprise,” [Romney advisor] Madden said, “we can point to a whole host of successful enterprises that have resulted in job creation and wealth and prosperity.”

I probably don’t have a future as a strategist for a candidate, but I have to say that I never thought Romney’s Bain experience was being touted because it meant he was such a hot jobs creator. When he mentioned those 100,000 jobs Bain supposedly created, it seemed to me it was more to defend himself against the charge that Bain destroyed more jobs than it generated by reorganizing the troubled companies it advised.

What I thought Romney’s Bain experience was about that would be a plus in this election was the ability to size up an organization, decide where the fat resided, and cut in order to make it more profitable. I thought that making companies leaner and yet retain (or enhance) their efficiency was exactly what he was selling, and that the argument would be that he’d apply it to the government rather than the private sector.

I’ve assumed he’d be making that argument soon. But I’ve learned not to assume that my assumptions are correct—especially when they’re prognostications.

[NOTE: So, is it time for me to start a "Romney" category on the blog?]

Newt Gingrich may have violated Reagan’s 11th Commandment, but John Bolton follows the William Buckley Test and endorses Mitt Romney.

(1) It’s not at all surprising that Ron Paul would do well in New Hampshire. Not only was he helped by the fact that Independents (known as “undeclareds” in New Hampshire, and who are more likely to be Democrat-leaning than Republican-leaning) are able to vote in either party’s primary there, but the state has a very strong libertarian tradition. “Live Free or Die” and all that. So my prediction is that this will be Ron Paul’s finest hour, and there will be no significant carryover into subsequent states’ primaries.

(2) Conventional wisdom is that Romney did well in New Hampshire because he’s a regional native son, having been governor of neighboring Massachusetts. But remember that he lost there to McCain in 2008 despite that fact. New Englanders know that there’s no great love lost between Massachusetts and New Hampshire. In fact, a great many residents of New Hampshire, especially the more recent ones in the southern and more urban tier of the state, left Massachusetts for the less liberal climate of New Hampshire and are happy to have done so. I think that, although Romney did get a bit of a bump from the familiarity of having been governor of a neighboring state, it was more determinative that New Hampshirites have somewhat of a history of liking moderate Republicans rather than the more extreme conservative types, especially those of the socially conservative variety.

(3) Perry was never going to do well in New Hampshire, where Bush lost in 2000 despite ultimately getting the nomination. Whether such a judgment is fair or unfair, Perry is too reminiscent of Bush.

(4) What’s New Hampshire’s record of choosing the ultimate winner of the Republican nomination? Pretty good, actually. The only Republicans since the primary began in 1948 to win New Hampshire and not ultimately be nominated by the party were Harold Stassen (1948; Dewey was the eventual nominee), Henry Cabot Lodge (1964; Goldwater was the eventual nominee), a surprising Pat Buchanan (1996; Dole was the eventual nominee), and McCain (2000; Bush was the eventual nominee). Note how much New Hampshire Republicans seem to have liked RINO McCain, voting for him twice. But they couldn’t take him across the finish line in 2008 against Obama, who won the state in the general by approximately 54 to 44 percent.

So, oddly enough, although New Hampshire is unrepresentative of Republican voters as a whole and is quite tiny, and although many non-Republicans there can (and do) vote in the primaries, and although it votes very very early in the game before many other states have declared themselves and while there are still a large number of candidates from which to choose, New Hampshire actually has an excellent track record of picking the eventual Republican nominee.

Go figure.

Isn’t the internet wonderful? Through this blog, I recently got the answer to a question that’s been tormenting me for close to fifty years.

Well, maybe not tormenting exactly. But I’ve long been troubled by my inability to identify a sci-fi story that had transfixed me when I’d first read it as a youngster. It concerned a society in which people lived for so long that, to counteract their inevitable boredom and ennui, they learned a way to temporarily transfer their consciousness into different creatures, such as animals.

Funny how memory goes. For a long time I thought the author must be Clifford Simak, and I had a vague recollection of the title of the collection as being something with the word “strange” or “strangers” in it. I kept looking for an anthology by Simak entitled Strangers in the Universe, and about two decades ago I’d gone so far as to locate a used copy and to read each story to see if the plot resembled the one I remembered. No dice.

But all I had to do was post this query last December on a thread about memory enhancement and bam!—a couple of hours later, a commenter volunteered the information I’d been seeking for so long.

It turns out the story was actually not so short; it was a Poul Anderson novella known as “The Star Beast,” which had appeared in his 1961 collection Strangers From Earth, although it had first been published in a magazine in 1950.

So I hadn’t been so far off on the title of the correct book after all, although my error had kept me from locating it. Memory (and it was in a thread about memory where the question and its solution first appeared) is a funny thing, and I’m pleased to see that mine wasn’t so faulty.

While I was researching this post, I discovered that, coincidentally, “The Star Beast” is also the name of a later novel by Robert A. Heinlein (1954), strangely enough. And in another odd coincidence, an even earlier short story (1940) by (of all people) Clifford Simak comes very close in title: it’s called “The Space Beasts.”

As I was looking this stuff up I noted two other things. The first is how astoundingly prolific both Anderson and Heinlein were (see this and this). The second is how evocative and poetic many of the great sci-fi short story titles are. I’d sensed that as a child and had responded to it; some of the best titles (which I’d forgotten in the interim) sent little shivers of remembered delight and mystery through me as I saw them again: “All the Traps of Earth,” “The Stars Are Also Fire,” and “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.”

[NOTE: My very favorite sci-fi writer when I was young was Philip K. Dick. His stories had creeped me out mightily---the stuff of nightmares---while simultaneously fascinating.]

Tell me, what do you think is going on here (please read the link to understand what I’m referring to)?

(1) Gingrich is just being helpful in trying to move Romney to the right, because he knows that Romney will face the same charges at the hands of the Obama crowd come the general.

(2) Gingrich feels a deep moral outrage by Romney’s actions during his tenure at Bain and by all similar business practices, and he thinks the American people ought to be informed, come what may.

(3) Gingrich really thinks the lies in the movie are true; he’s just misinformed.

(4) It’s payback time, and all’s fair in love and campaigns.

(5) Gingrich has gone over to the Dark Side (or maybe he was always there).

(6) Gingrich knows nothing about this film, disapproves of it, has no power to stop it, and will denounce it.

(7) Gingrich is like the drowning man who knows he’s going under and wants to pull Romney down with him (oh, I guess I said something like that yesterday).

(8) Gingrich thinks he will win the Republican nomination this way.

(9) Gingrich thinks Santorum will win the nomination if Romney gets knocked out and that he’ll then pick Gingrich as VP.

Or, if your answer is (10) (none of the above), please let me know what you think is really going on in the cranium of Newt Gingrich.

Fox News projects Romney as the NH winner by double digits, with Ron Paul second, and Huntsman third.

An interesting statistic is that this is the first time since 1976 that the same person has won the Republican primary in both Iowa and New Hampshire. The two states are not similar. And South Carolina, up next, is dissimilar to both of them as well.

[ADDENDUM: Frivolous comment alert: Ann Romney is wearing a white suit. On TV. A brave, brave---and slim---woman, who's given birth to five children, is in her 60s, and looks smashing.]

[ADDENDUM II: Happy to see that Romney's speech is mainly focusing on criticizing Obama's policies. "The president has run out of ideas; now he's running out of excuses"---and tonight he's appealing to South Carolina voters to make sure Obama is also "running out of time."]