QB/Coach Theory of Governance

So this has probably already been theorized by someone else, or has thousands of flaws, or doesn't make much sense, but if you don't write about this stuff, you'll never know, eh?

So I was on a bus to Boston, trying to work on a paper about Wal*Mart, when I started thinking about different theories of governance. I just started writing some stuff down, and here's what I came up with.

As I see it, there are two different types of governance that an executive can take: The QB or the Coach.

Whether the executive is the leader of a sports team, a corporation, or (as I had in the back of my head as I wrote this), the Preident, they tend to fall into one of the categories. On a simple level, the differences between the two are simple and quite commonly explicated.

QB -More active in decision making, takes roles into his hands.
-Decides what other people will do.
-Should be intelligent, but being naturally gifted is more important.

Coach -More hands off, focuses on shaping framework.
-Decides which people will be used where.
-Must be wise, calm, and have a long view on things.

While some teams have both, a team can be successful if it is built around either an exceptional Coach or an exceptional QB.

How the situations differ depending on which type the executive is:

Executive is a Coach: Decisions are primarily based on strategy. Player selection is crucial, and farm clubs are used to develop talent. Maintaining excellence is the overarching focus, or cutting losses in times of trouble. A Coach must have experience, age, and respect from those he interacts with. He relies on the talents and individual decision making abilities of those who he chooses in order to succeed. Less of a sense of "Never Surrender," more negotiatory. In this scenario, there are many opportunities for rising starts. It does require an incredibly strong team as a whole, due to a vacuum of leadership on the actual field. He needs to have independent thinkers around him, such as assistant coaches who disagree. The integrity of his players is paramount.

Executive is a QB: Decisions are primarily made by the executive, based on somewhat limited guidance. QB sees options, quickly balances, enacts, forcing conclusions. Rather than picking players based on diversity and inquiry, selects for loyalty, needed skills, and ability to follow orders. Can be a rookie, doesn't necessarily have to have lengthy credentials, only needs respect of his core. An aura of mysticism or sense of fate benefits him. Rather than plan for the long-term future, he believes that overwhelming success in the immediate will carry him. Much more likely to go for the gusto, take risks. Liklihood of success closely correlated with his individual talent. Relies on other players of similar stature (if they exist) to shoulder burden, blame for failures. If QB is incredible, can succeed with mediocre team. Can energize teammates, spectators with ease, perhaps avoiding pitfalls this way. Less need for dissenting assistant coaches, much greater need for sly, skilled, intelligent specialists and trainers to get an edge. Is able to overcome lapses in judgement of integrity of his teammates.

Downfalls of executive as Coach: No charismatic QB for team to coalesce around. Harder to pull team out of slump quickly. Because of slow growth, lengthy development of team, often fails to satisfy short attention span of fans. Can be difficult to select cohesive team of independent thinkers, difficult to maintain message. Loss of supporting players hurts team more than under QB. More difficult to carry on dynasty from Coach->Coach or Coach->QB than from QB->QB or QB->Coach. Dissents of assistant coaches can be troublesome from time to time. Mistakes in decision making are seen as intelligence failures, rather than as the result of risk-taking as under QB system. Longer-lasting negative reflection on Coach. Higher chance of gridlock, lower team enthusiasm. Team rides on the Coach's shoulders, but others can ruin it.

Downfalls of executive as QB: Requires QB to take dual role as player/quasi-coach. More taxing, less room for error. Failures of QB hurt team more than failures of Coach in Coach exec. system. Shortened honeymoon period, results expected immediately. Lowered diversity of message can hurt if fans shift their expectations. Often acts rashly, mistakes can come back to haunt QB. May have to shuffle go-to players often to maintain excellence, can throw QB off. Inexperience can cause segment of population to immediately withold respect. Less chance of leaving a positive legacy, unless presented with generation defining situation. QB's focus on pleasing players and die-hard fans can alienate others, stifle broad support. Loss of aura of mysticism/fate results in disenchantment, hard to recover. Failure to think about long-term backfires when faced with opposition that accepts short term losses for future success, builds farm club. Often seen as less intelligent than Coach, lucky with talent, rather than skilled with knowledge. If QB is the only star on team, can be double teamed, overwhelmed. Mediocre team can hinder rise of QB. Reliance on skills of sly trainers can backfire if integrity is compromised.

That's basically it, transcribed from the furious scribbles on my notepad. I think it can apply to lots of scenarios, but as I said, I was thinking about Presidents when I wrote it, so here's how I think it breaks down.

QB: Bush II, Carter, TR, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Johnson, Hoover
Coach: Clinton, Reagan, Bush I, Nixon, FDR, Lincoln, (John Kerry)

I think its interesting how it doesn't at all seem to follow party lines. Then again, its all ramblings coming from me, so I could be millions of miles off base. Who knows.

There are lots of things I derived from that that would seem to explain (or at least reflect) outcomes of past elections, why some Presidents had legacies, why others didn't, and could offer some thoughts for 2008. I'll refrain for now, but maybe explain more later.

Election 2006

So after hearing about how badly the Republicans are going to get pummeled this fall, I was curious as to actual numbers. I went to my favorite poller (most accurate polling service in 2004, offer lots of synoposes free, do rolling polls which I feel predict trends better) and decided to look at the seats that look like they're going to change hands.

Senate:

New Jersey Senate: Kean (R) 43% Menendez (D) 36%

(Menendez is the incumbent)

Montana Senate: Burns (R) 47% Tester (D) 44%

Burns (R) 45% Morrison (D) 47%

(Burns is the incumbent)

Florida Senate: Nelson (D) 57% Harris (R) 27%

(Nelson is the incumbent)

Ohio Senate: DeWine (R) 45% Brown (D) 42%

(DeWine is the incumbent)

Minnesota Senate: Kennedy (R) 40% Bell (D) 43%

Kennedy (R) 42% Klobuchar (D) 45%

(The DEM is the incumbent)

Washington Senate: Cantwell (D) 48% McGavick (R) 40%

(Cantwell is the incumbent - and look at this:

The latest Rasmussen Reports election poll of Washington state's Senate race shows Republican Mike McGavick continuing to chip away at the incumbent's lead. Democratic U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell now leads McGavick 48% to 40%. In March, Cantwell led 49% to 36%. The new poll is the third in a row in which the incumbent has lost a percentage point of support. And it's the second poll in a row showing her at less than 50% support. Meanwhile, McGavick, the former Safeco CEO, has made his strongest showing yet, and is firming up support among Republicans (now 86%) and conservatives (79%).

Missouri Senate: McCaskill (D) 42% Talent (R) 41%
(Talent is the incumbent)

Pennsylvania Senate: Casey (D) 49% Santorum (R) 40%
(Santorum is the incumbent - and look at this:

The latest Rasmussen Reports election poll in the Keystone State shows Democrat Bob Casey leading Santorum 50% to 41%. That's the first time in all six polls we've conducted on this race that Casey's lead has slipped to single digits. It's also the first time Santorum has moved above the 40% mark since last July. However, another aspect of the poll might be even more encouraging for Santorum... and troubling for Casey.
After asking survey respondents who they would vote for, we informed them that the National Organization for Women (NOW) is concerned about Casey on the abortion issue and is endorsing another candidate in the primary. We then asked a second time about how each respondent would vote.
Twenty-four percent (24%) of Casey's initial voters changed their mind upon hearing this news. Half switched to Santorum while the others split between "some other candidate" and "not sure."
The change was dramatic enough that, having heard the new information, voters favored Santorum by a five-point margin (46% to 41%). This suggests a lack of voter knowledge about Casey that could make the race more competitive than it seems at this time.

These are the only competitive Senate Races, all the others are safely in incumbent hands. So what does this tell us right now?

If the elections were held today, the GOP would lose 1 or 2 seats, (and that's assuming that the 1% difference in the MO race would hold and that Burns would face Morrison in Montana.)

If that 1% difference is ignored, and Burns ends up facing Tester, we remain at 55-44-1 in the Senate.

Now, think about this...Kean is on his way up. That's solid. Burns is in a rebound. Say that cements him in. In Minnesota, the Dems havent even picked a candidate, and the GOP is only 3 pts back. in Washington, McGavick made up 5 points in a month. If the Casey/Santorum hypothesis is true...

This could be a very very very disappointing year for a lot of Dems...

Am I missing something?

A suicide bomber killed nine people and wounded 60 others at a Tel Aviv restaurant yesterday in the first major attack since Hamas took control of the Palestinian government.

Hamas leaders emphatically supported the Passover week attack as a legitimate act of self-defense. Members of two rival Palestinian factions, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, claimed responsibility for the bombing.

Isn't that pretty clearly state sponsored terrorism? As in, Palestine directly attacking Israel? As in, time for these scumbags to be removed from the face of the earth?

With its response, Hamas gave the first indication of how it would view attacks against Israel after winning legislative elections in January and taking control of the Palestinian Authority last month.

''We think that this operation . . . is a direct result of the policy of the occupation and the brutal aggression and siege committed against our people"....''The Israeli side must feel what the Palestinian feels, and the Palestinian defends himself as much as he can."

"Defends himself" Well, yea, I guess that terrorist was "defending himself" from all those terrible men, women, and children eating lunch.

And speaking of nations that need some serious attention paid to them...

Hamas has observed a cease-fire with Israel since February 2005. Islamic Jihad, a separate Islamic extremist group with close ties to Iran, has claimed responsibility for eight of the nine suicide attacks staged against Israel in the past 14 months.

Link

Hate it or love it, the Super Store's on top...

So I'm starting to put together a piece on Wal-Mart, and in doing some research, I came across a quote from Glenn Reynolds that I think sums it up nicely:

You know, to me Wal-Mart is a lot like George W. Bush. It's not that I'm that big a fan in the abstract, really, it's just that the viciousness and stupidity revealed in its enemies tends to make me view it more favorably than I otherwise would.

Sometimes I wonder if the best strategy for the left would be to just stop talking for a while. Hell, might as well give it a shot, not much else seems to be working.

How dumb is the AP?

So a story comes across the AP lines today -

Man Gets $218 Trillion Phone Bill

A Malaysian man said he nearly fainted when he recieved a $218 trillion phone bill and was ordered to pay up within 10 days or face prosecution, a newspaper reported Monday.

Yahaya Wahab said he disconnected his late father's phone line in January after he died and settled the 84 ringgit ($23) bill, the New Straits Times reported.

But Telekom Malaysia later sent him a 806,400,000,000,000.01 ringgit ($218 trillion) bill for recent telephone calls along with orders to settle within 10 days or face legal proceedings, the newspaper reported.

Amusing, no? Completely irrelevant, but nobody really expects much of the MSM anymore.

Then, inexplicably, the AP felt it necessary to include this gem:

It wasn't clear whether the bill was a mistake, or if Yahaya's father's phone line was used illegally after after his death.

Are you kidding me? It wasn't clear that it was a mistake? They felt the need to raise the possibility that the phone line was somehow illegally used, ringing up $218,000,000,000,000 worth of phone charges?

It's completely obvious to anyone with 6 or 7 functioning brain cells that it's a mistake. Unless in the space of 3 months some hackers managed to make phone calls totaling roughly 8 times the worlds yearly GDP, the bill is an error. So fix that part of the story, and what are you left with?

Man Receives Mis-typed Bill

A Malaysian man received a mis-typed bill that overcharged him for phone calls. He was reported to be agitated.

Thank god the AP is out there, reporting on these hard hitting stories for us. Rhodes scholars, the whole bunch.

Now that you mention it...

Conversation with Tom Oliphant today:

"Agh, what are you doing with that on your head?" (Referring to my Yankee hat)
"Always loved them, just born and raised that way."
"God, I don't suppose you're a Republican too...."
"Uh...."

heh.

Equal Opportunity Corruption

Looks like the temptation to misuse power isn't just limited to Republicans these days...

As lawmakers have increasingly slipped pet projects into federal spending bills over the past decade, one lawmaker has used his powerful perch on the House Appropriations Committee to funnel $250 million into five nonprofit organizations that he set up.

$250 million into his own groups? That seems a bit excessive, even by federal government standards. But he probably did something good with the money, like build soup kitchens or homeless shelters, right?

The most ambitious effort by the congressman, Alan B. Mollohan, is a glistening glass-and-steel structure with a swimming pool, sauna and spa rising in a former cow pasture in Fairmont, W.Va., thanks to $103 million of taxpayer money he garnered through special spending allocations known as earmarks.

Oh. Hrmmm. Well, at least the non-profit that the structure was built for will be doing all sorts of good things for the West Virginia community, right?

The headquarters building is likely to sit largely empty upon completion this summer, because the Mollohan-created organization that it was built for, the Institute for Scientific Research, is in disarray, its chief executive having resigned under a cloud of criticism over his $500,000 annual compensation, also paid by earmarked federal money.

Oh. Well, it's not like the Congressman himself actually profited, it was just that one corrupt CEO, right?

The five organizations have diverse missions but form a cozy, cross-pollinated network in the forlorn former coal capitals of north-central West Virginia. Mr. Mollohan has recruited many of their top employees and board members, including longtime friends or former aides, who in turn provide him with steady campaign contributions and positive publicity in their newsletters...

...Those forms show a jump in Mr. Mollohan's portfolio from less than $500,000 in assets generating less than $80,000 in income in 2000 to at least $6.3 million in assets earning $200,000 to $1.2 million in 2004, along with large mortgage debts.

Oh. Granted, that seems a bit fishy, but its probably not all that unique. I mean, Congressmen do things like this all the time, he isn't any different from the rest, right?

Although Mr. Mollohan's mentor, Senator Robert C. Byrd has long blanketed the state in bacon in the form of large public works projects and federal complexes, Mr. Mollohan has directed more than half his earmarks to his five organizations of his design.

Several people involved in the appropriations process said no other lawmaker employed that strategy to the same extent.

Ouch. This all seems like pretty damning evidence. But in the end, this shouldn't be reflective of Democrats as a whole. It's probably just a case of some junior lawmaker overreaching, not knowing what he's doing, right?

The case has led several Republican leaders to call for Mr. Mollohan's removal from the House Ethics committee, where he is the senior Democrat.

Oh boy.

But he's an idiot, right?

Last night, the Dalai Lama had lots to say about terrorists and the war in Iraq. While he disagrees with what I'm assuming is the belief of the majority of the American people, that Osama Bin Laden should be killed, he had this to say about the President:

Although he appeared not to approve of the war in Iraq, he was admiring of Bush.

"He is very straightforward," said the monk.

"On our first visit, I was faced with a large plate of biscuits. President Bush immediately offered me his favourites, and after that, we got on fine. On my next visit, he didn't mind when I was blunt about the war.

"By my third visit, I was ushering him into the Oval Office. I was astonished by his grasp of Buddhism."

Astonished by his grasp of Buddhism? Now, you could make the joke that that's only because he didn't expect Bush to understand, let alone spell Buddhism, but I'm assuming the comment was genuine. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Bush has lots of problems, but he's a lot smarter than people give him credit for.

Cartoon Controversy

This was the closest we came to seeing the Mohammed cartoons.

Free speech didn't do so well today.

The Objectivist Club at NYU has been planning an event titled: Free Speech and the Danish Cartoons. The event was supposed to be a panel
discussion with a representative from the Ayn Rand Institute, the president of F.I.R.E, an author on Islam, and a former editor of the NY Press. During the discussion, the group planned to show the Danish Cartoons of Mohammed. This last bit caused a bit of trouble.

I won't go into the whole backstory here, for that, check Instapundit or Diana Hsieh.

I went to Kimmel today to see what was going on and to try to get into the event.

I arrived around 5:30, and was greeted by police officers and NYU security at the doors of Kimmel. I went around the corner to see about getting tickets, but I was informed that the tickets were sold out. After explaining that students had been coming in to get tickets and then tearing them up, they explained that they couldn't do anything about that.

I went back to Kimmel where the rally was scheduled to be, and after showing my ID to get in the door, I stopped to see the protest in the entryway. There were about 60 people, including the NYU President and other administrators, sitting on the steps to hear the speakers. The speakers included representatives from the Islamic Center, a Rabbi who opposed the publication of the cartoons, and a representative from the Campus Anti-War Network. What they had to do with the theme, I'll never know.




After the rally finished at around 6:15, the students from the Islamic Center set up prayer rugs outside, at the south side of the park, and held their evening prayer there. (Oddly enough, they faced north during the prayer, I'm not sure if there was a reason for this or not.)



While this was finishing up, I began to see about possible ways to get into the presentation. Security was incredibly tight, with NYU Security, NYPD, Men-in-suits-with-earpieces (MISWE's), and a metal detector at the entry to the event. The elevators were set not to go to the fourth floor, so I tried the stairs. No luck, security there. I ended up going back downstairs and talking to the security guards to see if they could let me up without a ticket. That got me nowhere fast, but I decided to hop on the line anyways. After I got up to the front, I asked about possibly letting NYU students in after it becomes clear that the event wasnt sold out, and was told that if I hung around, I might be able to get in.

Luckily, a few minutes later, an Administrator ushered the other students waiting and I in, over to the only elevator that was going to the fourth floor.

Arrived at the event, passed through security, and made it in around 7:10. The first thing I noticed upon entering were the easels standing on the stage sans cartoons. The event was delayed until around 7:25 before starting, but moved along from there. The president of the Objectivist club (An indian female, for those of you who insist that this must be a racist stunt), opened the discussion by explaining that because of the decision to allow non-NYU people into the discussion, the cartoons would NOT be shown. The crowd of around 200 was not exactly enthusiastic about this.

The panel was introduced, and gave their opening statements.

From left to right, the person in the middle was the moderator.

Peter Schwartz began, attacking the ideology of Islamic totalitarianism which he said was reflected in intolerance, oppression, and terrorism. Fair statement there. He had some choice, Ayn Rand-ish sound bites, such as "Faith is blind obedience in defiance of reason," and characterizing Islamic totalitarianism as an "attack on the free, rational mind."

Dr. Andrew Bostom was next, and was perhaps the most critical of Islam of the four panel members. He discussed the many depictions of Islam through history, and attacked what he saw as the enablement of the terrorists by Muslim leaders who did not condemn these actions.

Jonathan Leaf was up third, discussing the NY Press's decision not to print these cartoons. He's the recent author of a play that criticizes an actual act of terrorism committed because some fanatics believed that another play was going to depict Mohammed. He had some choice points to make, such as stating that Mohammed Atta was sexually confused. He was also the fiercest in criticizing the university, saying "There is something deeply wrong that here in a university we cannot put these things up." While several of the speakers made reference to Salmon Rushie and the fatwa placed on his head by Iran, Leaf mentioned that he spoke to Rushdie a few weeks ago, and talked to him about the issue. He also argued that Iran's call for the death of a British citizen was an act of war.

Last, but not least, Greg Lukianoff spoke about the Heckler's Veto and its enforcement at NYU. He called the idea that the university would ban the cartoons from being presented "chilling and absurd." He made the point that Muslims, some of the biggest beneficiaries of the Bill of Rights, (without which, their rights certainly would have been curtailed after 9/11), would be so opposed to something protected under it. (For the record, one of the cosponsors of the program was a Muslim student.) Regarding the decision of the press not to print the cartoons because of "sensitivity to religious beliefs," he noted the recent decision of the NYTimes to publish a conspicuous picture of a Hasidic Jew, while noting that his faith precluded him from having his picture published.

I was forced to leave before the end of the debate, as I had to come back for a staff meeting, but all in all, I think it was very informative. As I was leaving, people were STILL in line, waiting to get through the metal detector. Barring some outrageous event occurring in the last bit of the program, I think the only bit of "news" there tonight was that if you complain loud enough, and people are scared enough, you can get what you want. And that's sad.

Or at least this guy thought so.

OH NOES!!!!!!111one

According to a new CBS poll, Bush's approval ratings have hit an alltime low of THIRTY-FOUR PERCENT!!! (It's so bad that we can't even use numbers, you'd go blind.)

How on EARTH could it be that low? Everyone must really hate Bush. I mean, CBS wouldn't lie to us, would they?

I mean, not to say that I don't have faith in CBS, but let's take a look at the numbers behind the poll, just to avoid casting unfair aspersions on such a reputable bastion of truth:

Total Respondents: 1018

Total Republicans: 272
Total Democrats: 409
Total Independents: 337
Total African-Americans: 207


Weighted Republicans: 289
Weighted Democrats: 381
Weighted Independents: 348
Weighted African-Americans: 118

Huh??

Wait a minute...

So, in the initial call, they got:

Republicans: 27%
Democrats: 40%
Independents: 33%
African-Americans: 20%

Then, they weighted it to:

Republicans: 28%
Democrats: 37%
Independents: 34%
African-Americans: 12%

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_bush_022706.pdf

Does that seem right? What would be the best measure to compare it to in order to see if its an accurate poll?

How about the last huge poll of actual voters, the 2004 National Exit Poll?

In 2004, here was the breakdown of the voters:

Republicans: 37%
Democrats: 37%
Independents: 26%
African Americans: 11%

So, after "weighting," this poll deliberately underrepresented Republicans by nearly 25% from their actual representation. That sure sounds like an accurate poll. Hmmmmm.

Now, Rasmussen reports, the most accurate polling firm of 2004, and one of the most trusted, places Bush's approval rating at 43%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

I wonder who to believe?