- Jan 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Feb 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28
- Mar 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Apr 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- May 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Jun 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Jul 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Aug 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Sep 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- Oct 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Nov 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- Dec 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Cretinous B*$*@**$
Posted by on 1.31.09 @ 5:13PM
Jim, to answer your question about the disconnect between the RNC and the conservative movement, the answer is that the RNC has been controlled since 1988 by cretinous b$^#$*^#s. It's all about thinking themselves "the right sort" of people, not about building a party in order to advance certain principles of government. This is what the first Bush administration bequeathed to us, and it has been thus ever since.
When my father was Louisiana's Republican National Committeeman from 1988-1993, he and Morton Blackwell repeatedly tried to pass a resolution urging the Bush administration to codify the "Beck decision" that allowed workers to withhold (or get back) union dues taken from them and used for purely political purposes, rather than for benefits or collective bargaining services. The Beck decision was one of the greatest advances for worker rights in years (oddly, just this past week Barack Obama issued an executive order rescinding the younger Bush's Beck-related orders), but the first Bush administration, cowered by the unions that never were going to support the administration anyway, absolutely refused to do anything to implement Beck -- and the lickspittle, pathetic, obsequious RNC refused to let the Hillyer/Blackwell resolution even see the light of day.
The real test for Michael Steele is whether he will shake things up, tell the hangers-on to get lost, kick out two-thirds of the consultants, and get aggressive with technology and on-the-ground organization, which absolutely requires an outreach and coalition-building with conservative movement organizations -- or whether he will ignore the movement, pay consultants for lots of useless TV spots, and spend most of his time trying to go on TV himself and talk a good game. If all he does is the latter, it won't matter how good he is on TV (and he usually is, to his credit, very very good), because he will have continued the same moronic trends that have helped drag the party down.
Blackwell's Uphill Battle
Posted by on 1.31.09 @ 2:26PM
Ken Blackwell faced an uphill fight from the very beginning. For the first time since before George W. Bush became president, the Republican National Committee had the opportunity to choose their chairman themselves. Blackwell was the only candidate who had never served on the RNC in any capacity. (Michael Steele wasn't a current member, but as a former Maryland state party chair, he had served on the RNC in the past.)
Some of Blackwell's most ardent supporters were movement conservatives outside the RNC. His leading detractors may well have been fellow Ohioans on the RNC, including outgoing RNC Co-Chair Jo Ann Davidson and longtime Ohio state party chairman Bob Bennett. Though it was a coup for Blackwell to pick up the support of the Yobs, especially since Chuck Yob had been rumored as an RNC chair candidate himself, this also to some extent associated him with Michigan's intraparty feuds. So Blackwell had a lot fans outside the club and some critics inside the club.
Blackwell has also always been a conservative first and Republican loyalist second. While this explains why so many movement conservatives were enthusiatic about him, it's easy to see how a committee of 168 Republican loyalists might take a different view. Finally, Blackwell entered the race late. He was the last of the candidates to make it to yesterday's vote to throw his hat into the ring.
At the time I wrote my column on Blackwell's bid, it looked like he was overcoming these obstacles. Other potential candidates were bowing out and supporting him, including Yob and Blackwell running mate Tina Benkiser of the Texas Republican Party. Blackwell initially led the field in public endorsements by RNC members. Early on, no split between the party establishment and movement conservatives -- a split that had defined much of Blackwell's political career in Ohio -- was apparent. But as other candidates began to pass him by in public commitments, I began to wonder if his support was going to be limited to the most conservative RNC members.
Why aren't there more movement conservatives -- or people swayed by endorsements from movement conservatives -- on the Republican National Committee? Good question. Why are most of the movement conservatives in elected office in the House, with only a handful among the senators and governors? The last movement conservative to win the party's presidential nomination was Ronald Reagan in 1984. The movement has succeeded in pushing the party's center somewhat to the right -- a field where Steele is the most moderate candidate is a pretty conservative field by, say, 1970s standards -- but its control on the GOP's levers of power are exaggerated.
RNC Hangover
Posted by on 1.31.09 @ 2:34AM
After five hours Thursday night and five hours Friday at the Capitol Hilton covering the contest for chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, I'm just about OD'd on the RNC.
My source who predicted Mike Duncan to have 55 votes on the first ballot was very near the mark. The two state party chairmen who said Thursday they liked Steele's chances were prescient, so I wish I hadn't taken their predictions with a grain of salt.
My belief that the all-star conservative endorsements for Ken Blackwell could make him a favorite proved woefully misguided. The thing about an RNC election is that there are only 168 voters, whose preferences are idiosyncratic and influenced by factors (including personal friendships) that are opaque to any outsider. Blackwell's endorsements from Steve Forbes, Ed Meese, Brent Bozell, David Keene, et al., which seemed so impressive to me and others, simply did not penetrate the opaque loyalties of the voting members.
This suggests a clear disconnect between the operational mechanism of the GOP and the institutional apparatus of the conservative movement. I don't think it is "a deliberate affront to the conservative movement," to use Quin's phrase. Rather, I think that the people who are doing the day-to-day work of the Republican Party simply don't pay any attention to anything outside their particular operational focus. What Bozell does at the MRC or what Meese does at Heritage doesn't have anything tangible to do with canvassing precincts or recruiting candidates or running volunteer phone-banks. And so the names of these movement leaders conjure no particular magic among RNC people.
As much as I'd like to ponder at length the phenomenon of the GOP/conservative disconnect, or contemplate the significance of the 77 votes for Katon Dawson on the final ballot, my synapses are too frayed for any serious thinking now. If anybody else has some unfatigued brain cells they'd like to apply to these Big Picture questions, please have at it.
UPDATE: Dan Riehl weighs in on the conservative movement:
In my opinion, they are Old School as organizations, more DC-esque than grassroots now and suck up too many valuable resources, some of which would probably serve the GOP better in younger, fresher hands. And I say that as no youngster myself.
There may be a problem of what I call institutional inertia. Institutions over time develop patterned ways of doing things -- institutional habits -- that are not necessarily the only way to do things nor the best way to do things. These habits become embedded, and are resistant to reform.
You see this, for example, in the public school system: If the current system did not already exist, no one seeking to develop an ideal system would create anything like what we have now. But institutional inertia causes the system to fiercely resist reform, so those who don't like what the system offers eventually just walk away. (I'm a homeschooling dad.)
It is troubling to think that the conservative movement may be an example of the same principle of organizational dynamics at work. I know that the folks at Heritage, etc., have worked hard to maintain their relevance (e.g., adapting their output for online consumption) so I'm not ready to write them off as dinosaur fossils. But reform and innovation take time.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Bush Meets Steele
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 10:42PM
As I was leaving the RNC meeting at the Capitol Hilton tonight, a few black SUVs pulled up in the driveway, and former President George H.W. Bush emerged from the backseat of one. Walking with the help of a cane, he entered the lobby, where newly elected RNC chairman Michael Steele was shaking hands and posing for pictures. Bush and Steele greeted each other and hugged, while Republicans who were still gathered having drinks at the bar looked on and applauded the former prez as he walked to the elevators.
Another Tax-Challenged Cabinet Nominee
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 6:56PM
Oops! It turns out that Tom Daschle has his own tax problem. Reports ABC News:
ABC News has learned that the nomination of former Senator Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., to be President Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services has hit a traffic snarl on its way through the Senate Finance Committee.
The controversy deals with a car and driver lent to Daschle by a wealthy Democratic friend, a chauffeur service the former senator used for years without declaring it on his taxes.
It remains an open question as to whether this is a "speed bump," as a Democratic Senate ally of Daschle put it, or something more damaging.
I find it easier to believe that this was a genuine oversight than I do Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's case. But still, it doesn't look good. Why do the folks who want to raise our taxes seem to have such a hard time paying their own?
Doubts, But High Hopes
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 5:55PM
A number of thoughts about the RNC Chairmanship race. First, many congratulations to Michael Steele. He is a good man, a great communicator, and a breath of fresh air in attitude and outlook. The downside risks with Steele are that he was probably the least conservative of the six announced candidates, AND the one with the thinnest record of nuts-and-bolts organizing, fundraising and electoral success. Those are significant concerns -- but I think he is sincerely more conservative than not, that he has a fairly good ear for political tone, that he will be a good representative for the party, and that he has all the potential in the world to put to rest doubts about his organizational bona fides. The tests will be if he spends more money on the grassroots than on consultants, if he takes an aggressive posture on candidate recruitment rather than leaving it to the NRCC and RSC, and if he serves an an honest broker ideologically while doing everything in his power to nurture the conservative grass roots. My hopes for him are much higher than my doubts.
Second, a note on Katon Dawson: I think he was by far the class of the field in terms of nuts-and-bolts stuff, and clearly an incredible talent in terms of party-building. I think his membership in an all-whites country club was what kept him from winning -- which is in one sense a crying shame, because I think the rest of his record shows him to be anything but a racist. I think the whole question about country club membership is a bogus one -- but, politics being a very real-world undertaking, the simple fact is that the media would NEVER have let him live it down, especially if he had won in the final ballot in a head-to-head race with a black man. The media also would have pushed the meme that Dawson is just another Lee Atwater-like dirty trickster, merely because Dawson came up through the South Carolina party while Atwater was still around. Again, that would not have been a fair assessment, but it would have been used repeatedly anyway. All of which would have made his election problematic. But I hope there are no hard feelings between him and Steele, and I hope Steele calls on him and engages him fully in his organizational and fundraising efforts. Dawson is quite a talent.
Third, a note on Ken Blackwell. I think it was obvious that I had come to favor him. I think his exit was incredibly classy, which is befitting a very classy man and a great public servant. I have admired Blackwell for a long time, and I hope and pray that his life in public office is not over. I want to see him in a leadership position, and I look for great things from him. I repeat, however, my utter disgust with the RNC for giving Blackwell so few votes. I consider it a deliberate affront to the conservative movement, considering how many movement leaders (or leaders of movement organizations) endorsed him. What the RNC said is that the conservative movement means nothing to it. The "establishment" still doesn't understand that the movement is the only source of strength the party has -- and I am furious at the establishment's attitude. It has been thus ever since the elder Bush took the reins of the party in 1988, and it stinks.
Fourth, a note on Saul Anuzis. What an engaging personality and energetic go-getter! May he Twitter his way to success in the future.
Fifth, as for Mike Duncan. He merits thanks for good, solid service and excellent fund-raising. We'll never know how well he would have done on his own as chairman (apart from the W. Bush White House), because it would have been suicide for the party to give him that chance. Through no fault of his own, but for plenty of good reasons, the grassroots would have been angry beyond belief if the RNC didn't change its leadership after the House and Senate also stayed the same at the top. The disgust for the GOP establishment among the grassroots is deep and palpable, and Duncan was a symbol of the establishment. All reports are that he is a truly fine gentleman, though, and he has provided valuable services.
Sixth, as to Chip Saltsman: I never gave him a chance. I figured that if you lie down with dogs, you get flees -- and he ran the campaign of Mike Huckabee, the unethical economic- and foreign-policy liberal. Such a shame. Saltsman probably was right to argue that the sins of the candidate should not be held against the campaign manager -- but those political sins made Saltsman un-viable from the start. But I've gotta admit: On the one conference call with him that I listened in on, he sounded like a good guy.
So where does the RNC go from here? One can only hope that it becomes a lean and effective engine for forward-looking conservative leadership melded with effective politics. If Steele hires good people and serves with energy, and refuses to be satisfied with just making some good TV appearances, the future can be bright. But it will be a hard, hard road.
Conservatives Rejected By The Party?
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 5:09PM
Looking at the different ballots, and how the voters moved, it was clear that "establishment conservatism" as espoused by Blackwell was going nowhere. This doesn't indicate an ideological failing -- it's not that people didn't agree with Blackwell's views -- but instead, they likely believed more that others in the race would be able to organize. Blackwell had also joined the race late, belying a late enthusiasm.He was hoping to ride the "change" wave, but didn't do so. But "change" was simply anti-establishment. In other words, the conservative hope was still packed inside the overall platform of changing the guard.
Let's look at how the ballots moved.
Ballot 1
DUNCAN:
52
STEELE:46
DAWSON:28
ANUZIS:22
BLACKWELL:20
Already there's support for Steele -- strong support for Steele, as a "change candidate." From this early on, it must have been a surprise to see Steele do so well. It's unclear to what extent members identified Steele as being the candidate for moderates, however -- Duncan himself has been accused of the same. Blackwell started at the bottom, and likely looked to surge later. Dawson, who was likely to receive support from Duncan's people
Ballot 2
DUNCAN: 48 (-4 from first ballot)
STEELE:48 (+2)
DAWSON:29 (+1)
ANUZIS:24 (+2)
BLACKWELL: 19 (-1)
Duncan lost four votes, and Blackwell lost one. Steele, Dawson and Anuzis all gain. Steele and Anuzis are also both considered "change" candidates. Whatever the heck that means.
Ballot 3
STEELE:51 (+3 from second ballot)
DUNCAN: 44 (-4)
DAWSON:34 (+5)
ANUZIS:24 (No Change)
BLACKWELL: 15 (-4)
Steele finally beats down Duncan. Dawson picks up the rest of the votes. Blackwell drops by a quarter of his own votes.
Ballot 4
DAWSON: 62 (+28)
STEELE: 60 (+9)
ANUZIS: 31 (+7)
BLACKWELL: 15 (No Change)
Duncan drops out entirely. The RNC staffers start handing out their resumes to passersby. Blackwell is dead in the water, not having gained any, while Dawson takes on the majority of Duncan voters. Steele picks up more, as does Anuzis. These two essentially become the fulcrum of anti-establishment candidates. Yes. I said fulcrum. Blackwell's voters run to Steele.
Ballot 5
STEELE: 79 (+19)
DAWSON: 69 (+7)
ANUZIS: 20 (-11)
With Steele still in the lead, Anuzis becomes the kingmaker and hands it to Steele.
In other words, what we see is a trend of anti-establishment candidates gelling together versus those who have been on the scene for a while. Dawson, while a good operative, had made blunders that only complacent Republicans would have been happy to countenance.
Two things for conservatives to concern themselves with: First, is that Steele does represent a sense of change. He is a more pro-active spokesman. He is also someone open to ideas -- and likely moreso than previous party apparatchiks who might have ignored conservative yelling.
The second is more important. Blackwell's initial showing does show a problem for the party -- the fact that party members are not readily identifiable as part of the movement. Despite the endorsement of the conservative establishment, Blackwell went nowhere. This does not mean that voting members should be banished from conservatives' Christmas card list. But it does show that the conservative movement, for all their claims of Republican dominance, do not have the influence they thought. Rather than make the claim that these people are intellectually bankrupt, conservatives ought to start figuring out how they can reestablish that influence.
Steele's First Presser
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 4:44PM
One of the main selling points among Michael Steele's supporters was his ability to effectively communicate, and his first press conference since being elected chairman went smoothly.
“This is a new moment for our party," he said, noting that Republicans didn't live up to the Contract With America. “This is a dawn of a new party, moving in a new direction, with strength of conviction.”
Asked whether he would come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh, Steele said Limbaugh has a right to say what he wants, and that, “Rush can handle himself and he seems to be doing a good job of it right now.”
And to grassroots conservatives, he had a message: "Get ready to work.”
Chairman Steele
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 4:38PM
This was, by far, one of the most interesting things I've ever covered. And Steele? I've brought up problems Steele might face, but the biggest concern has always been, how are you at organizing? Steele has scrambled and won this fight definitively, bombarding members with emails for two days to drop their support for Duncan and go straight to him. It worked. Even his more bone-headed tactics, like his own people claiming some deal was being worked out with Duncan, then turning around and saying it was just a silly rumor, didn't negatively effect him.
Steele's outreach to moderates will be closely watched, and as I said, in the northeast, it's necessary. But as Jim as pointed out, "With some exceptions, Steele has defended a conservative Republican platform in hostile territory while holding the door open to moderates." There's a difference between a party chairman who embraces moderates, one who shuns them entirely, and one who looks at them for what they are -- opportunities to make blue states purple.
Steele is a sharp man who has successfully managed his own image, and his own administration. He is also not insulated -- he does not suffer from the maddening tendency of Republicans, and even conservatives, to refuse to innovate and keep an ear to the ground. This will be an important asset as Steele takes on the challenge of two off-year elections and 2010.
Dawson, who is an excellent political operator, showed his stuff in surging as far as he did. But for the next 2 years, we won't have to listen to Republicans attempt, mealy-mouthed, to defend the GOP as a party of inclusion while at once explaining the specific circumstances surrounding its tin-eared chairman. That was a conversation they never needed.
Steele has been waiting in the wings for a long time for this, since taking on GOPAC, even. Wish him luck.
An Important Moment for the Republican Party
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 4:23PM
I'd like to go back and watch it again, but I think that Ken Blackwell's speech withdrawing from the race and throwing his support behind Michael Steele, and urging the Republican Party to once again show itself to be the party of Lincoln, was an important symbolic moment. It represented the triumph of a younger, more inclusive generation over the old guard. Steele was a relative outsider in the sense that he was not an active state party chair, while to those voting, Katon Dawson was one of their own. I didn't have a dog in this fight and have my own doubts about how effective Steele will be as a manager. But there was just no way that the Republican Party could take a step backward, and elect Dawson, a man who had a long membership to a whites-only country club and who talked about how desegregation turned him into a conservative.
Steele Speaks
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 4:13PM
“As a little boy growing up in this town, this is awesome," Michael Steele said in accepting the chairmanship of the RNC. He vowed to take the conservative message to every boardroom and community and expand the map of the Republican Party.
“For those of you that wish to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over," he said
Steele went on to add that "To my friends in northeast, get ready baby, it’s time to turn it on.” He said Republican Party would expand in the midwest, and win the west once again.
"We stand proud as the conservative party of the United States,” he said.
Michael Steele's Conservatism
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 4:07PM
There was a lot of criticism of Michael Steele's conservative credentials during the race for RNC chairman. My own view is that Steele is personally fairly conservative, but has perhaps drunk a bit deeply of the conventional wisdom on how Republicans can appeal to the center (though, let's face it, he is a Republican who has had to try to win in a Northeastern state).
In both his bids for statewide office in Maryland, Steele ran as a strong pro-lifer in a very liberal state. In 2002, Steele had the benefit of a pro-choice candidate above him on the Republican ticket but in 2006 he was out there on his own -- and even held firm on embryonic stem-cell research. With some exceptions, Steele has defended a conservative Republican platform in hostile territory while holding the door open to moderates. Steele's chairmanship is an opportunity to bring together Republicans who want to see the party stick to its conservative principles and those who would rather it move to the center.
Questions remain about Steele's effectiveness as a nuts-and-bolts party builder, but he is an able communicator and amiable television presence. The alternative was a candidate who, whatever may be in his heart, demonstrated a tin ear on racial issues at a time when the party is struggling to show it can be inclusive. Ken Blackwell, whose conservative credentials have been questioned by no one, may have helped Steele turn the corner in this contest, where he'd been typecast as "the moderate."
Anuzis Withdraws, Doesn't Endorse
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 3:30PM
Now we have 20 votes up for grabs. Steele needs 6 of them, and Dawson needs 16.
Steele Wins Fifth Ballot
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 3:27PM
But he's still six votes short of the required 85:
STEELE: 79 (+19)
DAWSON: 69 (+7)
ANUZIS: 20 (-11)
If Steele Doesn't Win Now....
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 3:12PM
..... the the RNC is incredibly stupid, utterly oblivious to the connection between PR and politics.
Steele is a good man and a great public speaker. Whether he has any real nuts-and bolts and fundraising skills is open to question, but the Republican Party right now can't stand NOT to find out, because the PR downside of failing to elect him now would be a disaster on the scale of Vesuvius.....
Blackwell Drops Out, Endorses Steele
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 3:03PM
In his speech, Blackwell talked about the GOP being the party of Lincoln and of needing to have a chairman who could inspire hope and create new oppourtunities.
Anuzis Can Be the Kingmaker
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 2:49PM
If I'm Saul Anuzis, I'm not too upset right now. He can be the kingmaker and pretty much write his own ticket.
As for the low Blackwell vote, even though the entire who's who of the old conservative movement endorsed him: This means the RNC is saying, no shouting, F*** YOU to the movement. But it also means the movement folks have done an absolutely terrible job of organizing on the ground, if they control so few of the state party officials. I watch these things closely, but I had no idea the movement had dissipated so badly....
Dawson Moves Ahead on Fourth Ballot
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 2:42PM
DAWSON: 62 (+28)
STEELE: 60 (+9)
ANUZIS: 31 (+7)
BLACKWELL: 15 (No Change)
Duncan Drops Out
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 2:15PM
He's speaking now, recongnizing "the winds of change" in the room. He did not publicly endorse anybody. There are now 44 votes up for grabs, so now it gets interesting.
The Suicide Watch Consensus
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 1:54PM
Matt Welch has a good definition of Obamian bipartisanship up over at Reason:
...Obama is skillfully turning the meaning of the word "bipartisan" into "the coalition that agrees with my magnanimous self." All this "political suicide" talk serves his conscious goal of peeling off enough scared and/or squishy Republicans to turn his already impressive majority into something positively Reaganesque. So that he can even more smoothly carry out the urgent bipartisan business of installing Big Labor in the West Wing.
Duncan is Toast
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 1:42PM
Duncan is toast. He ought to drop out rather than experience a long, slow death by a thousand cuts. What everybody else is waiting for is to see where Duncan's votes go. Thatll be the big test.
Steele Moves Ahead on Third Ballot With 51
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 1:37PM
STEELE:51 (+3 from second ballot)
DUNCAN: 44 (-4)
DAWSON:34 (+5)
ANUZIS:24 (No Change)
BLACKWELL: 15 (-4)
One would have to think that anybody who is losing ground at this point is unlikely to win.
Blackwell Shouldn't Budge
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 12:59PM
I have a fair amount of experience in these small-group elections, and if I were running the Blackwell campaign, I would NOT drop out, not budge at all. Now is actually the time for him to make his move UP. Here is what the results so far mean: Duncan is toast, because the "status quo" vote isn't going to grow any more. Steele already has rallied all the moderates, but there aren't enough of them for him to win and he'll probably top out at 65 or 70 votes (with 85 needed to win). The race will become Steele vs., eventually, one other person. Whomever emerges as that other person probably wins.
The question then becomes, where do Duncan's 48 votes go? In the end, they probably don't go to Dawson: He ruffled a lot of feathers last fall by so openly running against Duncan before the November elections had even occurred, plus there still are just enough people concerned about the PR of the all-white country club that he has a ceiling he can't breach. So, do they go to Anuzis, or to Blackwell? I'd call it a split for now. But where do Dawson's votes eventually go? Mostly to Blackwell, I imagine, if he stays in. First, Dawson's supporters tend to be more conservative, so ideologically they might lean Blackwell. Second, I think there is bad blood between Dawson and Anuzis -- whereas I think there is appreciation, in the Dawson camp, for Blackwell having publicly defended Dawson on the country club thing.
So, what I see is a celing for Duncan and a ceiling for Dawson. Blackwell eventually gets 24 of Duncan's votes, plus his own 19, plus, say, 24 of Dawson's 29. That puts him up to 67, with Steele about the same number, and with Anuzis at about 35. All of which means it becomes a contest between Steele and Blackwell for the 35 Anuzis votes. And quite a contest it will be: Anuzis himself will probably favor Steele, because of his rivalry with the Yobs (who are backing Blackwell). But Anuzis's folks may A) favor Blackwell's stronger conservatism and B) favor Blackwell's far better record of fundraising and more extensive resume. So I'd say Blackwell still has a real chance, if he plays his cards right. Again, it's all in the way you deal with people in the foyers and aisles of the convention room.
And if Blackwell's people are checking AmSpecBlog, they might want to see how my analysis matches up with theirs.
Duncan and Steele Tied on Second Ballot at 48
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 12:55PM
Not much movement:
DUNCAN: 48 (-4 from first ballot)
STEELE:48 (+2)
DAWSON:29 (+1)
ANUZIS:24 (+2)
BLACKWELL: 19 (-1)
Man of Steele
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 12:23PM
Right now, there's a short break while RNC members eat boxed lunches, but the reaction to the first ballot has mainly been surprise at the strong showing by Michael Steele. Most people following this race expected Mike Duncan to be ahead by a wider margin after the first ballot.
Flashback to 1997
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 12:08PM
I was just handed a breakdown of the results from the 1997 RNC chairman’s race, which was the last one that was really contested. After the first ballot, the eventual winner, Jim Nicholson, was in a distant third place with just 23 votes (the first place candidate had 42 and the second place candidate had 41). But Nicholson won on the fifth ballot with 74 votes. Ken Blackwell’s team has said that this is the model they’re hoping to follow to win on one of the later ballots.
Repealing Welfare Reform?
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 12:05PM
In the New York Post, Charles Hurt argues that the stimulus plan takes a step toward doing just that:
The very heart of the widely applauded Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is a cap on the amount of federal cash that can be sent to states each year for welfare payments.But, thanks to the simple phrase slipped into the legislation, the new "stimulus" bill abolishes the limits on the amount of federal money for the so-called Emergency Fund, which ships welfare cash to states.
"Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated such sums as are necessary for payment to the Emergency Fund," Democrats wrote in Section 2101 on Page 354 of the $819 billion bill. In other words, the only limit on welfare payments would be the Treasury itself.
"This re-establishes the welfare state and creates dependency all over the place," said one startled budget analyst after reading the line.
Who knew "change" meant changing back to welfare as we knew it pre-Clinton?
Duncan Wins First Ballot With 52 Votes
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 12:05PM
DUNCAN: 52
STEELE:46
DAWSON:28
ANUZIS:22
BLACKWELL:20
RNC Voting Underway
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 11:20AM
Having just completed the roll call, the 168 RNC members are about to fill out physical paper ballots which they'll fold in half (not quarters or eigths, they were instructed), drop into a ballot box, and then we'll wait for them to be counted. In the RNC chairman elections, they don't remove candidates in future ballots who fail to meet a certain vote threshold, but those candidates may withdraw from the race. While you'll hear all sorts theories on who is going to win, there's broad consensus that this race will take many ballots to settle.
Is Ken Blackwell the Kurt Warner of Republicans?
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 10:58AM
The nominating speeches are underway now.
The speaker supporting Ken Blackwell argued that he could bring home the base and expand the base, that he's lived the American Dream, and that he has a proven record of being elected. Noting how the underdog Arizona Cardinals made it to the Super Bowl under the stewardship of Warner, the speaker said that Blackwell, was, in fact like the Kurt Warner of Republicans.
In support of Michael Steele, the argument was that he's also won elections and that he can inspire people and is a skilled communicator. The speaker noted that he'll be be on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this weekend debating James Carville and Bob Beckel.
Supporters of Mike Duncan noted that he has the experience to lead the party, and that he has proven himself an able fundraiser.
Katon Dawson's backers said he could rebuild the grassroots organization, improve the brand, build coalitions and raise money.
Saul Anuzis was touted for his ability to go into communities that typically don't vote Republican and his emphasis on trying to turn blue states red. He's a "battle-tested field general who knows how to organize and win," one speaker said.
Specter Fights for Judges
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 10:53AM
Specter sent a letter to Obama. Read all about it.
Live from the RNC
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 10:42AM
I'll be liveblogging the RNC winter meeting proceedings as long as my connection holds up. The meeting just got underway and they're announcing the rules. The motion to conduct the election by secret ballot passed quite easily in this crowd, with only one audible person voting "nay" -- must have been an interloper from the SEIU.
AmSpec Goes Multimedia
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 10:39AM
Reporting from the Anuzis hospitality suite at the RNC:
Videography by AmSpec contributor Matthew Vadum.
No Limitations
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 10:35AM
President Obama has signed his first bill into law, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The headlines suggest Obama was simply siding with equal pay for women. What it actually does is open businesses up to litigation and make it more difficult for them to defend themselves against discrimination claims.
When Lily Ledbetter, the woman for whom the new law is named, sued Goodyear for years of pay discrimination, she wasn't alleging that current management was discriminating against her. She filed her lawsuit after she retired, after the supervisor who allegedly discriminated against her had died, and alleged that her paychecks today would be higher if her now-dead supervisor hadn't discriminated against her back in the day. A jury found in her favor, but a court of appeals and the Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations in the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 case had expired.
Obama and company have portrayed the decision as a rigid application of a 180-day ldeadine for bringing discriminate claims even when the discrimination has not yet been discovered. Not true. Ledbetter waited for years after she first suspected discrimination to sue; she could have sued under the Equal Pay Act, which had longer deadlines. And there are actually a number of exceptions to the deadline, such as "equitable tolling."
This bill was a priority of organized labor. For more details, read Paul Mirengoff's post on the Lily Ledbetter lie.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 10:31AM
- Cheney's war powers philosophy, all written up in a book -- his daughter's (Slate)
- Love the environment? Drive an old gas-guzzling pickup! (Market Movers)
- Ted Haggard isn't the first, and he has at least one example to follow (Crunchy Con)
- If you plan on adding $1.5 trillion to the deficit every year, you better be on good terms with China (Weekly Standard)
- Fair's fair (Brave New Deal)
- Post-partisanship takes a back seat to Chicago-style hardball politics in the White House (Politico)
- The KGB used to have to work for influence in the foreign press, now they just buy it (Economist)
- This time it's George Mitchell who's sent out on a fool's errand (Washington Times)
Commerce Secretary Gregg?
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 10:17AM
Are Republicans in line to lose another Senator...sooner, even, than they thought?
The blind leading the blind
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 9:49AM
I stopped by the RNC meeting last night as well, and it was interesting to see the candidates buttonholing every voting member they could. As Stacy noted, everyone there has an ulterior motive, and with a no-drop-off multiple ballot, it would be silly to presume that you know who has most of the support. Unless, as I've said, you've got a DeLorian in your garage.
According to some that were in the room, Mike Duncan gave as good a speech as they "had ever heard from him," defending his record and so on. But when it came time to answer questions, Duncan got testy and only gave canned responses. Members were not enthusiastic. A vocal portion of the audience made it clear they were also upset in that he didn't offer numbers or a plan to reach out to blacks.
One funny anecdote related to me was when Katon Dawson was lobbed an easy softball question so that he could address the whites only country club issue. Dawson responded that he had resigned from the club, that it was behind him, and that he's done plenty of work to be inclusive. It appeared genuine, and obviously, calling Dawson a racist on this charge is unfair -- if anything, he may be tin-eared on race. As Katon stepped aside, his luck must have run out. The next speaker in line introduced himself as a pastor of a 20,000 member black church. He noted that Dawson may think it's behind him, but in his own experience, this will be a big problem when it comes to attracting blacks to the party.
One person brought up to me that Dawson didn't fight to have the confederate flag removed from the South Carolina state house. That may be bad on an image level, but many in South Carolina feel strongly about the confederate flag, and Katon might not have been in a position to lead on the issue. The candidate, not the party chair, should lead the fight. But it does present yet another thing for the press to add to Dawson's bioline.
Speaking to the candidates, you get the sense that everyone is saying they're up against the candidate they'd most like to be up against. But they're also giving you their vote counts, which frequently include "secret votes." That is, the members don't want to come out publicly for them, but they're promising their vote. Chris Rock, if you've been dating a man for four months, and you haven't met any of his friends, you are not his girlfriend. If you've been courting an RNC member for three months, and he hasn't publicly endorsed you, he is not going to vote for you.
I agree with Stacy. This will take at least 5 or 6 ballots. Mike Duncan didn't make a good enough case, and it looks like members want to grab someone with "change" on the mind. No one I spoke to sounded bullish on Katon. While Steele is tied to moderates like Christie Todd Whittman, some members I spoke to didn't even mind, believing that the RNC needs to broaden the base. Interesting to me is that Steele and Anuzis are similar on this point, yet no one mentions that Anuzis would be willing to pull more moderates into the party as well. I don't know if it's a positive for him that he's been able to get so far without this becoming his defining issue, but it's strange that it hasn't come up. Steele has also been saying he's picked up a certain number of votes, but everyone I speak to says that they think it's a load of horse droppings.
I thought an interesting lens to look through was the question of who has the least enemies -- who people wouldn't mind voting for if their own candidate didn't make it. Blackwell certainly has the support of conservatives in the room, but will the moderates swing to him to get him 85? It's a question of whether they buy his fundraising ability and the ability of his coalition to create a smooth-running organization. Steele has the moderates, but would the conservatives ever hold their noses and go for him? It depends on how his pitch on "inclusiveness" goes over, and whether he can claim his GOPAC work as a positive. Because Anuzis has been a friendly guy who's been talking tech and philosophy, members may find it easier to go for him than to be caught between moderates and conservatives. But he has to talk about his successes as an organizer, which are few, and spin them as positive learning experiences. Yet he has a groundgame: quite a number of volunteers wandering around the hotel lobby wearing t-shirts. For those members who only became voting members on account of connections, and they are really just tourists with voting privileges, I can imagine this might actually help.
It's going to be a long day.
Lowry on Small Government
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 9:47AM
A good post from Rich Lowry at NRO, in its entirety:
*****
An Opening for a Small-Government Populism? [Rich Lowry]
Two things helped Newt Gingrich Republicans make an anti-government case in the early 1990's:
1) Big government was associated with cultural liberalism;
2) The deficit—popularized as an issue by Ross Perot—associated big government with Washington irresponsibility.
Over the course of the decade, Bill Clinton shrewdly worked to separate government from cultural liberalism by signing welfare reform and pushing various family-friendly initiatives, and the budget was balanced. This took a lot of the political charge out of anti-big government case.
I wonder if the excesses of the bailouts and the stimulus package will make big government politically vulnerable in a way it hasn't been in more than a decade by, 1) Again associating government spending with Washington irresponsibility through the truly dramatic new numbers for the deficit and the debt; 2) Intertwining government with Wall Street/corporate America in a way that makes it possible for a Main Street conservatism to run against both. There may be point here at which a Mike Huckabee populism and a Steve Forbes free-market economics can meet. There's usually a reaction to every action in American politics, and while the Democrats and Obama have basically a free hand to expand government in the current environment, you can already feel the backlash building.
I sure hope he's right -- although I hate having Huckabee's name associated with ANYthing good....
Fear and Loathing at the RNC
Posted by on 1.30.09 @ 2:50AM
Just got back from the Capitol Hilton and, after five hours of heavy schmoozing with attendees at the Republican National Committee's winter meeting, I can say with a high degree of certainty that anyone who tells you they know the outcome of the RNC chairman's vote is lying.
As to Chris Cillizza's claim that Katon Dawson's got the mojo -- didn't see it. Maybe the Dawson faction is playing possum, but if the South Carolinian is a "force to be reckoned with," it's a stealth momentum so hush-hush as to be undetectable to an outsider.
The most common opinion is that we can expect five or six ballots. The best-connected source I've got says to expect incumbent RNC Chairman Mike Duncan to come in at 55 votes on the first ballot and "erode" thereafter. Given that 55 votes is less than a third of the 168 RNC votes -- and now that Chip Saltsman has pulled out -- that would leave 113 votes to be divided among four candidates: Dawson, Michigan GOP chairman Saul Anuzis, former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Any of those candidates who's got 30 or more votes on the first ballot is in the game; any who comes in under 20 votes on the first ballot could be doomed.
Talk to a lot of Republicans about Duncan, and what you're liable to hear is, "Nothing against Mike personally, but . . ." The devastating losses of the past couple of years may not be Duncan's fault, but he was the guy at the helm when the ship hit the rocks, and there seems to be a strong consensus for . . . well, Change. That's not to say that he can't pull it out, but you'd have to count it as an upset if he were re-elected.
OK, then, what about Anuzis? He's the Energizer bunny in this thing. When you walked into the Capitol Hilton lobby Thursday night, you couldn't avoid the Anuzis activists, who had a station set up at the lobby bar, with activists/volunteers in blue T-shirts handing out stickers with the motto, "The Comeback Starts Now." Anuzis himself was not in the lobby -- doubtless he was buttonholing voting members one-on-one somewhere -- nor did I see him in his 10th-floor hospitality suite. His sister, Gailute Anuzis-Dedinas, was in the suite, and she talked to me a while. Is Anuzis truly "everybody's second choice," as one of his supporters told me two weeks ago? Hard to tell. One state party chairman I talked to said he expects Anuzis to finish fourth, but that might reflect a grudge. If energy, online organizing and solid support among Lithuanian-Americans counts for anything, Anuzis has got a chance.
Michael Steele has been hit hard by accusations of moderation. (In what Ralph Z. Hallow called the dirtiest RNC chairman's race ever, you know things are getting ugly when nasty slurs like "moderate" are thrown around so casually.) I talked to Steele in his hospitality suite, and he characterized his support as broad-based and geographically diverse, but his trump card may be his strong backing among blue-state Republicans. Two state party chairmen told me they like Steele's chances -- but anything you hear at an RNC meeting has to be taken with a grain of salt, because everybody's got an ulterior motive.
The consensus favorite among movement conservative leaders is Blackwell. He doesn't have the high-tech vibe of Anuzis or the Fox News cachet of Steele, but Blackwell is widely respected. One of his Ohio supporters vouched for Blackwell's prowess as a fund-raiser, noting that he raised $10 million for his 2006 gubernatorial bid. Given his numerous endorsements from prominent conservatives, Blackwell would be the smart-money bet in this race -- except you'd have to be crazy to wager on such a wide-open contest.
As I was leaving the Capital Hilton after midnight, I encountered a friend who asked me if I'd be back for the vote, scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m. "Well," I said, looking at my watch. "I don't know. Ten-thirty's going to come might early . . ." To which my friend replied: "Ah, don't sweat it. They're going to be voting a long time. Noon will be plenty soon enough."
And that's about the only safe bet we've got.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Textbook Definition of Know-it-all
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 6:24PM
Here's what blows my mind.
In a multi-ballot election, you can't possibly know who's going to win. Even if you grant a few hard. core. partisans that endorsed candidates for the RNC race, the truth is you can't possibly know who these people are going to go for. Which is why, when I look at Chris Cillizza's blog, The Fix, I can't help but roll my eyes. Really, Chris? You're making bets on this?
The logic is also faulty. No, sorry. It's wacky. Read this:
Dawson is, without question, the candidate with the momentum in the field. All sides acknowledge that Dawson -- once left for dead after revelations that he had been a member of a whites-only country club -- is moving up the ranks quickly thanks in large part to the consolidation of the south behind his candidacy. Dawson allies cast the country club incident as a strength for Dawson, evidence that he can take a hard punch and get up off of the mat. Dawson detractors insist that if the party elects him today, the country club association will dominate news headlines and put the GOP in a very uncomfortable position. Either way, Dawson is now a force to be reckoned with in the race.
Really? The pro-Dawson GOP committeemen think of the racist flap as a possible plus because it means he can "take a hard punch"? OF COURSE THE PRO-DAWSON PEOPLE ARE SAYING IT'S A POSSIBLE PLUS. Isn't it the rule that the chairman should never be the issue? And isn't electing Dawson guaranteeing us that Dawson will be the issue? Who do these "It's an asset!" people win elections for? Are they allowed to speak in their own states? Outside of an IHOP, I mean?
Then this:
[Blackwell's] movement has slowed considerably, however, as Blackwell has struggled to grow his support beyond the strongest social conservatives on the committee.
Wait. The guy who gets love from the Club for Growth only gets support from the strongest social conservatives? (Also, that Southern consolidation that Dawson's enjoying? Blackwell has Texas and Louisiana wrapped up and a vote from Tennessee. And Maryland's in the south -- Steele country.)
Then this:
Anuzis is probably the most charismatic member of the race (with the possible exception of Steele) and his personal magnetism has made him a popular figure among committee members. Of late, however, doubts have crept into the minds of some RNC voters about whether Anuzis is more a political operative than a party leader.
Cillizza's man-crush on Anuzis and Steele aside, all of the candidates are charismatic. Really. Blackwell has Facebook stalked me, and Saul and I once quipped about Chip's totally awesome holiday CD idea. But really, when I've gotten a chance to talk to a candidate, it's clear these people are all professionals. Saying that there's a person wearing the sandwichboard of charisma in this race is sort of like looking for a nurse in a hospital.
Then this:
Steele is currently regarded as the strongest alternative to Duncan and probably must finish no lower than second on the first ballot (and subsequent ballots) to maintain momentum. But, do lingering questions surrounding his conservative credentials and the fact that he is not currently a committee member complicate his path to 85 votes?
Wha? Who is Cillizza talking to that convinces him that he knows, he truly knows, that Steele is the "strongest alternative to Duncan"?
I can understand talking about who you think ought to win based on what the party needs. But the fact that there are reporters working for mainstream outlets who think that Republican political operatives (not even politicians! These people are the cynical of the cynical!) are being entirely candid with them is, well, cute?
Anyone who thinks that he knows who's winning this race either has a DeLorean in his garage, or he's getting smooth treatment from an operative. I'm looking at the vote totals out there, and I'm scratching my head how these people are so confident. It's a secret ballot. It's a multiple ballot. Political operatives lie for a living.
So trust no one. Write your instinct, but then say that's your instinct -- don't report it like it's a fact.
Blago Bye-Bye
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 6:14PM
The Illinois state senate has finally voted to cancel the Rod Blagojevich Show.
"Magic Negro" Song Controversy Makes Saltsman Disappear
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 5:52PM
Chip Saltsman is out of the Republican National Committee chairman race.
Change Conservatives Can Believe In?
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 5:07PM
That's the pitch Arizona Republican National Committeeman Bruce Ash made to fellow RNC members on behalf of Ken Blackwell:
I believe Ken Blackwell is the right leader at exactly the right time to lead and reform our party. Ken Blackwell is the logical change candidate with the stature and political philosophy to take the Obama Administration to task. Today I am urging members of the RNC who are supporting other "change" candidates to join me and a growing list of members in uniting behind Ken Blackwell.
Blackwell's supporters aren't letting the other candidates not named Mike Duncan corner the "change" market.
What's the Deal with Steele?
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 4:28PM
Some questions remain about
Michael Steele that he should focus on as he makes his final
pitch to committeemen today.
First is the question every candidate should be answering. What has he done to demonstrate that he has the sort of executive ability needed to lead the RNC? The GOP is in deep trouble, and no more mistakes are necessary.
For one thing, he was the LG for Bob Erlich, he ran a hard-fought senate race in Maryland. He was also the chairman of the MD GOP. He also has a law practice -- meaning he's rooted in the real world, not just the political one. (It is not clear, however, whether he's leaving this law practice and would likely keep his name on the firm to bring them more business.)
I've asked this question of Anuzis, too. But how has Maryland fared under Steele? Did Maryland pick up seats in the legislature during his tenure? Not really. How was he as a fundraiser, one of the main jobs of a chairman? Middling. Out of power and in a bad economy, committeemen need to ask how Steele will be able to pull in the big bucks for the party.
Which leads to another point. Steele needs to make a case that GOPAC has entered new territory under his leadership. Unfortunately, there isn't much of that, not to the level of Club for Growth's big impact. How much money has GOPAC given directly to candidates? How much money have they poured into independent expenditures? You ask anyone in the know, they will tell you that GOPAC is certainly a nice little group that does some good things, but they are in no way a major player on the level of the Club for Growth or NRA or any other major advocacy group on the GOP side. They're not weighing into primaries a la the Club and it's not like they've made a tremendous difference in general elections either. If Steele can get a few congressmen or state legislators to stand up and say that GOPAC made all the difference for them, Steele will have a solid point in his favor.
Committeemen are also uncertain about how he'll be inclusive if he has lined up with Republicans who have frequently trashed the conservative base. Look at his involvement with the Republican Leadership Council along with Christine Todd Whitman and John Danforth. This is a group founded ostensibly to bring moderates into the party. And coming from the great white northeast as I do, I see the value in that. But then again, the RLC spent a great deal of money in primaries attacking conservatives.
The other rumor floating around is how Steele is the Consultant Candidate. His campaign, for instance, is being run by Blaise Hazelwood, former political director of the RNC, wife of Dan Hazelwood, one of the biggest voter contact mail vendors. During Bush's term she steered nearly all RNC business to a very small cadre of firms. Steele needs to be clear that these affiliations don't give the impression that this is a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Committeemen are concerned about putting the people back in charge who just oversaw two of the biggest GOP losses since Watergate.
Now that the Dems elected a black President, the GOP can't fix all its problems by changing the "optics" of this whole thing and electing a black RNC chair. Steele, who is a highly visible "optic" change for the GOP, would probably be one of the most effective off-the-cuff communicators. But he would have to find some way to make sure the conservative base doesn't feel like it's getting sold out because he's throwing his lot with pro-choice candidates -- a really difficult balance.
A Strange Time, Indeed
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 3:10PM
Daniel Larison is right that it is awfully convenient that the Republicans have finally rediscovered their opposition to big spending and bad legislation now that the Democrats hold the White House after eight years of supporting big spending and bad legislation under President Bush. But that's politics. In fact, one of the main arguments made by conservatives who said the world wouldn't end if the Republicans lost an election was that the GOP might occasionally vote against big government served up by Democrats.
What makes less political sense is why conservatives of any stripe should criticize the House Republicans for voting against legislation that should not have been passed. Sure, the line should have been drawn well before now. Yes, the Republicans might actually have some credibility if they had voted down a Bush program. But I fail to see the benefit in continuing to misgovern the country for consistency's sake.
The politics of the stimulus bill are unclear at this point. The poll numbers are inconsistent enough that I suspect they are meaningless, besides reflecting a general sense that the government should Just Do Something and some skepticism that the government may be about to blow over $800 billion for no good reason. If the public, with the help of the media, judges the stimulus a success (in the event the economy somehow recovers in spite of it) Obama will get the credit. If you look at the history of Democratic programs that have passed with Republican support, he would have still gotten the credit if the Republicans voted with him. He'll get the blame if it is seen as failing.
It's not clear that the "lesson to draw from the Democrats’ defeat in 2002" is that "challenging a very popular President on a major piece of legislation (especially when the legislation is also popular) usually ends up costing the opposition party seats." The 2002 elections were only the third time the president's party had gained seats in a midterm election since the 1930s and only the second time a president's party had done so in the first midterm election of his presidency. The more common trend is for the party in power to lose seats in such elections. Further complicating things is that 2002 was the first election after 9/11, while Bush still, believe it or not, massively popular.
Even so, many Democrats voted for the 2001 Bush tax cuts, including 12 Democratic senators. No Child Left Behind passed the House with more Democratic than Republican votes. Half the Democrats in the Senate voted to authorize the Iraq war. And the Department of Homeland Security was originally the Democrats' idea. I only consider the first policy particularly creditworthy, but the Democrats didn't get to share the credit.
The Republican leadership is to some extent the Republican follower-ship. Lots of Republicans wanted to vote against the Wall Street bailout (in the House, most did) but the leadership blinked. Too many House Republicans opposed amnesty to make it feasible for the leadership to support the Bush administration on immigration. There just wasn't any Republican support for a stimulus bill that, given the baselines, might permanently increase federal spending to absurd levels. Not even Tom DeLay could have gotten more than a handful of Republicans to vote for this bill. Whatever their past sins, and they are many, good for them.
Rasmussen: Support for Stimulus Drops to 42 Percent
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 2:26PM
In an earlier post, I noted that the 52 percent public support for the stimulus bill reflected in the Gallup poll was a bit tepid, but a new Rasmussen poll finds support dropping to 42 percent with a near equal number of opposition at 39 percent. Some of the numbers behind the numbers are interesting, too. For instance, while support for the bill among Republicans and Democrats has remained relatively stable, "support among unaffiliated voters has fallen. A week ago, unaffiliateds were evenly divided on the plan, with 37% in favor and 36% opposed. Now, 50% of unaffiliated voters oppose the plan while only 27% favor it." In addition, 46 percent of those polled are worried that the government will end up doing too much, compared with 42 percent who worry it will do too little.
If these results end up being corroborated by other polls, it would suggest that Republican attacks on the bill have been gaining traction. Another two weeks of hammering away at this thing, and we could see a massive errosion of public support. At the very minimum, we should hold off on adopting the conventional wisdom that the legislation is broadly popular.
Blago's B-Day Surprise
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 1:32PM
Watching Rod Blagojevich try to defend himself in front of the Illinois state senate, it's hard to imagine he could do any worse by mounting the Onion defense: maintaining this was all part of an elaborate scheme to surprise Patrick Fitzgerald with a Senate seat for his birthday. And then he should change into his plumber's outfit.
Betting on 2010
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 12:16PM
A problem with the Republican bet against the stimulus that Philip Klein and I haven't really addressed is the issue that Rush Limbaugh spends most of his time railing against (when he's not at the center of an Obama-driven controversy)—media bias. The media wants President Obama to succeed. If unemployment merely stabilizes in the high single digits, banks merely stop collapsing like dominos, and the auto industry merely survives to 2010, this will be portrayed as the work of President Obama and the Democrats standing athwart history shouting "Here's some money! Please be nice to us!" Any sign of recovery at all will be a sign that the president's plan is working.
Republicans are betting that the media will be as interested in the story of their comeback, their rediscovery of fiscal conservatism, and so, as it is in the New Deal II drama of the Obama presidency. I think that's a sucker's bet. Things will need to get much, much worse for the media to start blaming Obama. (Not that the media will ever praise the Republicans for their stances; they didn't do that for the Barbour/Gingrich/Dole GOP in 1994.)
1993 Revisited, Revisited
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 11:57AM
It's also worth noting that Bill Clinton took office during a growing economy. Despite running against the worst economy since the Great Depression, the recession had actually ended in March 1991 -- more than a year and a half before the 1992 election. While Clinton and his tax-raising budget were less popular than Obama and his stimulus, that's an advantage Obama doesn't have.
Conservatives overstated the negative economic effects of Clinton's tax increase which, while large -- largest in history! -- in terms of gross tax take was fairly modest in how it boosted marginal tax rates. A good case could be made that the Clinton tax increase slowed economic growth, and both growth and job creation were still anemic by the time of the 1994 elections. But conservatives and Republicans were predicting a return to the 1990-91 recession or worse. When the economy boomed later in the decade and the deficits turned into surpluses, Democrats like Dick Gephardt were able to campaign against unanimous Republican opposition to the Clinton tax hikes:
Let me just say this: We've got a great story for the American people, and the middle class and all the people of the country. We did this. I led the fight for the Clinton economic program in 1993. It created 22 million new jobs. We didn't get a Republican vote in the House or the Senate. We passed it by one vote in both houses. And it's clear we get this. We know how to do this. They do not. If you want to live like a Republican, you've got to vote for the Democrats, and we've proven it over and over again.
That was during the 2004 election, which Democrats lost. If that didn't work politically for Democrats not named Bill Clinton, Republicans should be willing to take the risk on this stimulus plan in an economy that may not even have bottomed out yet. It is risky for all the reasons Dave notes. But if Republicans are right about the economics about this, then the politics will probably favor them in the long term. If wrong about the economics, who cares about the politics?
Red State vs. Mitch McConnell
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 11:47AM
Erick Erickson at Red State is having a ball with his protests against Mitch McConnell's failure to take a hard line. Hee-hee. And do a search and read some of his earlier posts on the subject. I'd say he's on the warpath.
The Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 11:33AM
Rush Limbaugh has a clever op-ed in the Wall Street Journal challenging President Obama to see which approach to stimulus really works best: have 54 percent of the stimulus package go toward infrastructure projects as determined by Obama, titular head of the Democratic Party, while 46 percent goes to tax cuts as chosen by Limbaugh, leader of the Republicans. (I do object to Rush lumping all of us who voted for wackos with the Obama voters.)
It's a tongue-in-cheek piece that makes a good point, but unfortunately it's not too far off from what the country saw under George W. Bush and to a lesser extent Ronald Reagan. Republicans mostly got the tax rates they wanted while the Democrats got most of the spending and government programs they wanted. This approach worked under Reagan because marginal tax rates were much closer to the prohibitive range and the Reagan administration did at least slow the growth of domestic spending. It helped get us into this current mess under Bush, when there was less Laffer Curve effect of the tax cuts and no serious attempt to restrain spending.
I'm not criticizing Rush. I'm just pointing out that when parodying American fiscal policy, you just can't make anything up that tops the reality.
1993 Revisited
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 11:10AM
Dave Weigel makes some valid points as to why the unified Republican opposition to the stimulus package is different from the political state of play when they stood together in opposing the Clinton deficit reduction bill in 1993. But it's worth keeping in mind the bottom line -- if unemployment is still high in the fall of 2010, which it is widely expected to be, Republicans can argue that Democrats passed an $800 billion-plus stimulus package that did nothing to produce jobs at a time when we were already staring down annual trillion-dollar deficits. And keep your eye on the possibility of stagflation given the combination of massive fiscal and monetary expansion. Yes, a majority of Americans may support the bill now, but 52 percent is not overwhelming support, and Americans are an impatient bunch. I don't think that 2010 is going to be another 1994, for a variety of reasons. A more realistic model might be something like 1982, when the recession lost the Republicans 26 House seats. That, of course, would lead to the question of whether a 2011 recovery would lead to an Obama landslide in 2012.
Palin, Palling Around with Presidents
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 10:49AM
An Arctic wind sweeps through Washington on the news that Sarah Palin confirmed that she has a dinner date with President Barack Obama in DC this weekend at the Alfalfa Club. Obviously this is terrible news for those who fear her Siren-like influence on men in politics. If you cannot stand even the thought of her (like for instance if you are a New York Times writer) then you have to be uncomfortable the situation.
For someone who obviously wants to run for president in 2012, she did a great job denying it: "No. Not at all. Not at all. No." Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
She also denied a possible book deal, saying that the rumors of an $11 million deal were "out of anybody's realm of possibility of consideration." Once again the reporters misunderstand her: she's not saying that it's out of the realm of possibility that she would be offered a deal of that size. She's saying that it is out of the realm of possibilities that she'd give consideration to a deal that small. The lesson is never to underestimate her ambition.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 10:28AM
- "This is where we fight..." for the Republicans (Washington Post)
- Michael Dukakis discusses trains, his pet project, finally getting $2 billion (Wired)
- What could Blagojevich's motivations for his bizarre self-defense be? (Reason)
- "How dare you?" as a long-running theme (Crunchy Con)
- Elitist Washington insider, oblivious to suffering of millions of America, lavishes other DC A-listers in his swanky pad. Typical (Politico)
- Basic Zimbabwenomics for the default swap markets (Long or Short Capital)
- Thrift: virtue normally, vice during a depression (Asymetrical Information)
- The rush to pass the stimulus isn't economic. It's poltical: if we had time to digest what was in there... (Think Markets)
Conservatives for an Efficient Welfare State
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 10:23AM
Jim quotes Matthew Continetti as writing that, "The trick is to finance the welfare state in a way that allows the maximum possible amount of individual liberty and economic growth." Continetti must have been reading Bruce Bartlett, formerly of the Reagan White House, who made a similar point in the Politico the other day, but took it a step further by arguing that conservatives should focus on advocating better ways to raise taxes:
I think conservatives would better spend their diminished political capital figuring out how to finance the welfare state at the least cost to the economy and individual liberty, rather than fighting a losing battle to slash popular spending programs. But this will require them to accept the necessity of higher revenues.
It is simply unrealistic to think that tax cuts will continue to be a viable political strategy when the budget deficit exceeds $1 trillion, as it will this year. Nor is it realistic to think that taxes can be kept at 19 percent of GDP when spending is projected to grow by about 50 percent of GDP over the next generation, according to both the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office. And that’s without any new spending programs being enacted.
If conservatives refuse to participate in the debate over how revenues will be raised, then liberals will do it on their own, which will likely give us much higher tax rates and a tax system that is more harmful to growth than necessary to fund the government. Instead of opposing any tax hike, I think it makes more sense for conservatives to figure out how best to raise the additional revenue that will be raised in any event.
This, keep in mind, is from the man who wrote the book Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, which is a blistering critique of Bush's spending policies. In it, he calls the Medicare prescription drug bill "the worst piece of legislation ever enacted." But remember that one of the main arguments made to woo conservative support for the bill at the time was that if conservatives didn't support the law, that Democrats would come in and we'd end up with something much worse. Well, guess what? The bill passed, it did absolutely nothing to close the gap that Republicans face on health care issues with the Democrats, and now Democrats are back in charge and poised to have the government takeover the health-care system. I imagine the type of "conservative" tax increases that Bartlett has in mind would have about the same effect.
Who's Shouting 'Free Popcorn!'?
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 10:07AM
No, silly, they're not talking about no-cost popped corn, but, rather, getting Marvin "Popcorn" Sutton, author of the apparent American classic Me and My Likker, released from the clutches of The Man. Otherwise, looks like Popcorn's going to prison on federal weapons and distillation of illegal spirits charges--that is, one presumes, unless Bo and Luke show up in the General Lee.
The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog describes Popcorn as "a legend of Appalachia." Always good to see stereotypes disproved, no?
If Popcorn was your supplier, though, and you're looking for something to help you make it through the jittery hours of detox, may I suggest losing yourself in imaginative play with a $150 bling-flashing Bernie Madoff action figure? It doesn't come with any plastic dupes, but take a cue from ol' Popcorn and...adapt.
I Challenge Gates
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 9:20AM
From the Mobile Press-Register yesterday, about the much-fought-over contract for a desperately needed new Air Force tanker, in light of a visit there today by Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha:
Murtha has emerged as the leading proponent of a compromise that would divide the contract between the two manufacturing teams. Murtha and other officials have said that a "dual buy" might be the only practical way to avoid litigation and other protests that could further delay the contract.
"The Air Force will have no choice but to split the ... tanker award between rivals Boeing and Northrop Grumman-EADS if it wants to receive a new tanker anytime soon," Murtha told Inside the Air Force, a military trade publication, in an article published in September.
Gates said he adamantly opposes a split deal, warning it would come at a high cost to taxpayers with no justifiable benefit to the Air Force. He told lawmakers Tuesday that any move to split the contract would be "an absolutely terrible idea and a very bad mistake for the Air Force." Boeing and its legislative backers have also vowed to fight any attempt to buy two different planes.
I will say it as plainly as possible: I don't trust Gates on this. I do not think he is impartial on this. I see him with his home for retirement already sitting there in the Seattle area (traditional corporate HQ for Boeing and still site of huge Boeing installations), and with one of his children living and working in the Seattle area and another one with longstanding ties to the area. I watched as he pulled the rug out from under the previous contract award to Northrup/EADS and from the fast-track post-appeal reconsideration of the award -- a reconsideration Boeing was so sure it would lose again that it threatened to pull out altogether -- and I watched as that very night Pentagon brass wined and dined at the Boeing table for a gala celebration.
Now I see somebody as experienced as Murtha, with no real dog in the fight but a real record (whatever else you think of him) of wanting to get good equipment to our military personnel, saying that it makes good sense to split the contract. And I am told that a split contract could be awarded as early as late spring, whereas the full new competition Gates wants will put off the award until next year at the very earliest. Yet Gates insists that a split award isn't doable, offering utter tommyrot about increased costs and additional training. The "increased costs" idea is an utter red herring, though, because part of the benefit of competition is that it keeps BOTH companies' feet to the fire to do the job efficiently and well, in light of the fact that this first award is only for 68 planes of a first batch of 179, witha total of 510 eventually needed. In short, a split contract would give both companies an incentive to keep cost down and performance up in order to better position themselves for much bigger awards for the same fleet of planes down the road.
But no -- Gates says he won't consider a split award. Isn't it funny how Gates was the only Cabinet member kept around by the incredibly Boeing-friendly Obamites? Isn't it funny that Gates himself has so many ties to Boeing-heavy Seattle? Isn't it funny that the new National Security Advisor, James Jones, was on Boeing's board until mid-December?
In Gates' obstinance against a split award, I smell a rat. I call on John McCain to investigate.
Shooting Deficit Hawks in A Barrel
Posted by on 1.29.09 @ 9:03AM
Matthew Continetti writes, "Deficit hawks need to take a deep breath and stop squawking. The national debt is in bad shape, true. And it's going to get worse, thanks to TARP and the stimulus bill and other baseline spending. But, for the next two years at least, the national debt will remain within its historic boundaries." Continetti points out that the national debt will still be a lower percentage of GDP than it was after the United States fought and won World War II. He concludes, "All things being equal, with the right policies the United States can grow its way out of its current debt as well."
Continetti himself acknowledges that all things aren't equal: the massive and growing unfunded liabilities of our entilements "really do pose a long-term threat to American solvency." And the taxes that will be necessary to fund these spending commitments and other increases in federal expenditures will make it difficult, perhaps impossible, to enact the right policies that will allow us to grow our way out of our current debt. (There's also the not insignificant matter that we didn't borrow money from the Communist Chinese to win World War II.)
The bailouts, the stimulus bill, whatever President Obama has in store for health care, and other possible spending increases are all coming at a time when the federal government can't afford the commitments it has already made. "The trick is to finance the welfare state in a way that allows the maximum possible amount of individual liberty and economic growth," writes Continetti. "Is Obama up to the task?"
Judging from Obama's willingness to quickly and recklessly increase federal spending -- given the baselines, probably permanently -- I'd say the answer is no. But either way, the "trick" is easier to talk about than to execute. The Baby Boomers are retiring. And the deficit hawks have come home to roost.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
RNC Gathers in Washington
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 8:10PM
After all the furious mud-slinging over the Republican National Committee chairmanship, the RNC is now gathering in D.C. for the meeting where they'll finally vote. Saul Anuzis supporter Lyndsi Thomas is blogging/Twittering/Facebooking the meeting.
Eleven Democrats Vote No, Too
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 7:00PM
So the opposition to the stimulus plan was more bipartisan than the votes for it.
How Hard Was That, Republicans?
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 6:50PM
I find myself of two minds in the wake of the House vote on the stimulus package. On the one hand, I'm thrilled that Republicans voted against this monstrosity. On the other hand, it's frustrating to consider what it took for them to actually stand in unified opposition to crappy legislation. For years, they voted for every pork-laden bill that the Bush White House sent down the pike. Now they finally make a strong statement for fiscal restraint, but only after two straight election pummelings that handed Democrats the White House, both chambers of Congress, and a near filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Things might have been a lot different had Republicans stood up to the Bush administration like they stood up to President Obama today.
No Republican Votes for Stimulus Package
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 6:22PM
The stimulus bill passed the House 244 to 188, without any Republicans voting in favor of it. No bipartisan cover for President Obama, at least not yet.
Pre-Super Bowl Brady Bashers
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 6:03PM
In this column, Boston Globe sports writer Dan Shaughnessy sounds like a guy who is angry that one of his friends is married now and can't go out for beers every night. No offense to Matt Cassel, who provided solid play and leadership throughout the season, but I'd take a canoodling Tom Brady over any non-canoodling quarterback in the NFL. Though the New England Patriots did end up missing Asante Samuel this season more than Brady.
House Votes Down GOP Alternative 266-170
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 5:26PM
The House just voted down the GOP alternative plan 266-170, with 9 Republicans voting against it and 2 Democrats voting in favor of it. That may give us some clue as to the outcome of the final vote, due soon.
But Even Homer Nods!
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 5:17PM
The inaugural parade from hell for one band drum major.
Re: Pondering Tax Cuts
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 4:51PM
Phil, your point about the morality of markets is one I've made myself:
Whereas transactions in a market economy are voluntary and peaceful, the actions of government are essentially coercive, backed with the threat of violence to those who disobey. What government does, it does "at the point of the bayonet," so to speak. Therefore, the fearsome power of government ought to be constrained to limited and specific purposes -- defending the life, liberty and property of citizens.
When government begins to meddle in the economy, picking winners and losers, using appropriations and fiscal policy to transfer money from one group of citizens to another, it divides society into two classes, taxpayers and tax consumers, punishing the former in order to reward the latter.
Such a policy is not merely misguided, it is immoral -- indeed, it is sinful . . . and by displaying the spectacle of government engaging daily in legalized theft, the welfare state tends to corrupt the morals of its citizens.
If conservatives are unwilling to defend the market economy on moral grounds, if they are unwilling to denounce coercive expropriation as immoral, all that remains to be settled is the question Lenin bluntly summarized as "Who, whom?"
House Republicans and the Stimulus
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 4:40PM
There's a good reason to play down expectations for the stimulus bill receiving bipartisan support. Republicans don't have the votes to stop it and they may not achieve the level of unanimity they did in opposing Bill Clinton's tax increase in 1993. But by all indications, the House Republican vote against the stimulus is going to be overwhelming. Republicans will go back to their districts saying they supported a GOP alternative that they claim cost half as much while creating twice as many jobs.
The End of Communism Remembered
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 3:08PM
While the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 was the symbolic end of communism, the Iron Curtain was first breached in Hungary months earlier The Economist reflects on the events which spurred a revolution in human liberty:
The images of crowds hacking at the Berlin Wall in November 1989 while bemused East German border guards watch helplessly are now iconic. But it's often forgotten that the Iron Curtain was first physically breached not in Berlin, but just outside Sopron, Hungary, on the Hungarian-Austrian border in the summer of 1989. As tens of thousands of fleeing East Germans poured in to Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the pressure built and built until it could no longer be contained.
When you cannot dam a wave, it's better to try and ride it. Which is why in June 1989 Gyula Horn, the Hungarian foreign minister, travelled to the border with Alois Mock, his Austrian counterpart. They brought a large pair of wire-cutters and started snipping (pictured above).
By then the Hungarians had been working with the West Germans against their supposed comrades in hard-line East Germany for years. The wily Magyars had joined the International Monetary Fund as early as 1982. One western official involved in negotiations between Budapest and Bonn told me how, as the one party state began to collapse, the Hungarian communist leadership would even travel to Germany with lists of reformist candidates for the Germans' approval.
It's hard to say what exactly was the tipping point that made the Communists realise that the game was truly, finally, over. The most likely event was the June 1989 reburial of Imre Nagy, the leader of the failed 1956 revolution. Nagy was arrested by the Soviets and executed two years later after a show trial. He was buried in an anonymous plot known as "Section 301" of a Budapest cemetery. (Ironically, historians such as Johanna Granville and Charles Gati argue that Russian archives show Nagy had been an informer or agent for the Soviet secret police, known as "Agent Volodya" during his time in Moscow in the 1930s. Others argue the documents are fake.)
The Third Inning
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 2:43PM
In his just-concluded daily briefing, Robert Gibbs kept downplaying today's House vote, saying it was just the beginning of a long process -- and he cautioned reporters against choosing winners after the third inning. Sounds like they aren't counting on many Republican votes, if any.
Calling Nina Burleigh
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 2:36PM
As usual, Jake Tapper tells it like it is. Talking about the media "on our knees" brings to mind Nina Burleigh and Bill Clinton. The difference is, Burleigh would not have had to wait in line behind about 1,000 other reporters.
Battle for the Border
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 1:34PM
The American Cause is holding a press briefing tomorrow on their new report arguing that the pro-enforcement position on immigration did not hurt the Republicans in 2008. As the Republican National Committee meets to select the next chairman, it's clear that illegal immigration remains a big issue for the party's rank-and-file.
A Guide for the Perplexed
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 12:00PM
Stimulus is upon us. In the name of partisan self-interest, both parties will preach that they have identified THE ONE macro-theory of economics that is entirely at-fault for this and they will also blame a few people who “really” triggered the depression. Conveniently, all the “destructive” macro-theories and figures will be from the other ideological camp. But first draft narratives addressing this, the initial phase of the collapse of High Finance and the U.S.’s 30-year experiment in Rentier Capitalism, are available and will help you avoid being a sucker when the Dems and GOPers preen and posture.
For some Finance 101, Dave Smith helps with clear explanations of securitization, credit derivatives in general and credit default swaps in particular, and even those infamous Wall Street employee compensation schemes.
Present-tense histories of the crisis are offered by Niall Ferguson in Vanity Fair, Michael Lewis in Portfolio, John Cassidy in The New Yorker, and Joe Nocera in the New York Times Magazine.
And two in-process papers that offer detailed explanations of how the government responded to the worst parts of the late-2008 section of the initial collapse: Eric Posner and Adrian Vermueule’s “Crisis Governance in the Administrative State: 9/11 and the Financial Meltdown of 2008” and Steven Davidoff and David Zaring’s “Big Deal: The Government's Response to the Financial Crisis.”
But I am being a bit deceptive with you. I do think there are people who deserve scorn and blame and punishment for this depression. Yet the reasons for their culpability are diverse and complex. And so, in that spirit of nuance, I vote for scuttling the Bruce show at halftime this weekend and substituting a few crucifixions to entertain the masses. We should randomly pick a few people on this list who shall suffer and bleed for our collective finanical sins. I mean what better venue for this type of social scapegoating than a national celebration of excessive consumption and ritualized violence? It only makes sense that we can stage a cathartic act of ritual violence for those who maintained and nourished another kind of symbolic order that manifested excessive consumption. And I’m sure Nouriel Roubini, Warren Buffett, and Stephen Eismann would volunteer to bring hammers and drive some nails. The added bonus: our blood offering will reveal whether Jesus will forsake Kurt Warner for a few downs in order to break their legs to put them out of their misery. Go Steelers.
Stop Going After Easy Targets
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 11:22AM
The political savvy Phil notes below is also a direct result of the Republicans' too clevery by four-fifths strategy of focusing their spending critique on earmarks and pork. Almost all of John McCain's credibility as an anti-spending politician, for example, came from his stand against earmarks. Earmarks are annoying, but they are not the spending that is bankrupting our entitlements programs or pushing us toward a European-style welfare state.
Republicans are right to point to the wasteful spending in the stimulus package and to highlight the extent to which this is just a giveway to various Democratic constituencies. But by focusing only on the waste, they give the Democrats the easy out of stripping the most egregious projects from the bill. The stimulus package needs to be opposed because it is bad economics; because the country cannot afford it; because the real stimulus portions are tiny; because the big increases in the deficit happen in the future, not now. In short, Republicans need to stop playing around and become a party of fiscal reality again.
Pondering Tax Cuts
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 11:20AM
Matt Yglesias asks:
Will the press let conservatives get away with simultaneously claiming that we can’t afford large new temporary deficit spending but can afford large new permanent tax cuts?
The problem is that Yglesias is conflating two different arguments. One argument is that we can't afford a $825 billion stimulus package when we're already facing a $1.2 trillion deficit in FY 2009. But anybody who makes that argument is told that we can't afford not to pass a massive stimulus package because the economic crisis is so severe. So once it's a foregone conclusion that there will be an $800-billion plus package, it becomes an argument over whether tax cuts or more government spending is the better approach.
Liberals believe that the best way to stimulate the economy is for the federal government to spend taxpayer money on pet projects, while conservatives believe it's better to allow families and firms to keep more of what they earn and that permanent tax cuts are better because much economic planning is done over the long-term. Furthermore, liberals fail to grasp the moral argument for tax cuts. Liberals see tax cuts as inefficient because people who end up with more money may either save it or spend it on something like new Blu-ray players, which wouldn't be as effective at boosting the economy as government spending, so they argue. But the the fact remains that it's the taxpayers' own money, and they should be able to do whatever the heck they want with it. When I argue in favor of cutting the payroll tax, I'm advocating a policy that would increase the take home pay of virtually every working American, whereas when Yglesias argues for more government spending, he's rejecting the idea of giving such a break to working families, because he thinks, based on newspaper articles and academic reports he reads, that he knows how to spend their money better than they do. As it turns out, history has proven the central planners wrong time and time again.
Pro-Life, Pro-Obama?
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 11:16AM
Robert George and company have launced an important new website called the Moral Accountability Project. Its mission is to contrast President Obama's actual record on life issues and marriage with the audacious hopes of the high-profile Catholics and evangelicals who supported him in the 2008 campaign.
Ready for 2010?
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 9:59AM
Everyone is now focused on the new Obama administration, but it's worth remembering that Barack Obama's presidential campaign kicked off two years ago in January 2007. Building a successful campaign takes long months of preparation and any hope for a Republican resurgence in the 2010 mid-terms requires that prospective candidates begin organizing now.
One such candidate is Lt. Col. Allen West, who challenged Democrat Rep. Ron Klein last year in Florida's 22nd District. With very little support from the national GOP infrastructure, and operating at a huge financial disadvantage, West nevertheless made a respectable showing, getting 45% of the vote in a district long represented by Republican Clay Shaw.
West is ready to launch his 2010 campaign, with a conference call Saturday and a Feb. 7 rally in Boca Raton and, in an e-mail to supporters, West says, "One of the keys to victory is getting his message out as early as possible and he needs your support."
Call Me Cynical
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 9:42AM
WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner picked a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist as a top aide Tuesday, the same day he announced rules aimed at reducing the role of lobbyists in agency decisions....
Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said President Obama was retreating from his own ethics rules barring lobbyists from working on the issues they lobbied about during the previous two years. "It makes it appear that they are saying one thing and doing another," she said.
Savvy Obama
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 9:15AM
Though I've given my fair share of criticism to President Obama and remain opposed to the stimulus package, I have to say that he has made a lot of smart political moves so far. His visit to the Capitol to meet with Congressional Republicans was a masterstroke, because he came off as gracious -- even though his statement that he wants to take politics out of the stimulus was a riot given that the bill is a massive collection of Democratic pet projects. But it's a win-win situation for him. If he peels off some Republicans, he can claim bipartisan support, and if he doesn't he can still pass the bill he wants and portray Republicans as being trapped in the old ways of Washington, where petty partisan games got in the way of doing the people's business. Also, he was smart to lobby to have the family planning money removed, a case where Democrats were sticking their thumbs in the eyes of Republicans. Democrats followed up by stripping the $200 million of funding to spruce up the National Mall. In both cases, Democrats are depriving Republicans of an easy line of attack and making it seem that Republicans will oppose any piece of legislation, despite their overtures. Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports on the reasons why some Democrats are skeptical about the bill.
Specter Backs Holder
Posted by on 1.28.09 @ 6:50AM
Arlen Specter, once the scourge of Eric Holder's nomination to be Attorney General, has had a miraculous conversion.
The political wrangling surrounding the nomination of Eric H. Holder Jr. for attorney general appeared to end Tuesday with his most vociferous Republican critic pledging to back President Obama's choice to lead the Justice Department.
Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, said he will support Mr. Holder, 58, when his nomination comes to a vote Wednesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which virtually ensures it will be approved by that committee.
"I think that Mr. Holder is entitled to the benefit of the doubt in the context of the excellent record he has," said Mr. Specter, who is the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
So the Senate Republican caucus is about to end the confirmation season with a whimper.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The $1.16 Trillion Stimulus
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 4:52PM
Most news articles have used the $825 billion figure as the cost of the stimulus and a CBO report released earlier today had pegged it at $816 billion. However, as it turns out, that substantially understates the full cost because it doesn't include the increased interest payments required to service the debt that will have to be issued to pay for the legislation. In response to a request by Rep. Paul Ryan, the CBO has now estimated that that interest payments will cost an additional $347 billion over the 2009-2019 time period, assuming the costs of the stimulus package are not offset by future legislation. That would bring the total cost of the package to $1.16 trillion.
A PDF of CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf's letter to Rep. Ryan, with a table breaking down the cost by year, is available here.
Feeding at the Stimulus Trough
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 3:53PM
Matthew Vadum is up on the main site with a new report on how much liberal groups like ACORN are getting from the "stimulus" package. It's more than you might think.
Stimulus Through A Payroll Tax Cut
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 3:51PM
Mitch McConnell has mentioned instituting a payroll tax holiday for a year or two, and while there are plenty of details that can be debated over the size and time frame of any payroll tax cut, there are several arguments that Republicans could be using to make this the central part of their alternative proposal:
-- Payroll taxes are paid by virtually every working American and so cutting them would provide an immediate raise to just about everybody with a job.
--This is a tax cut for the middle class, not one that is targeted to the wealthy.
--Payroll taxes are also paid by businesses and they are specifically a tax on employment. If the major goal of any stimulus is to save or create jobs, than what better way to accomplish that than lowering what it costs businesses to hire or maintain workers?
--A new CBO report describes how the spending component of the stimulus will inevitably be delayed because of various lags associated with any government project, but a payroll tax cut could go into effect expeditiously.
-- President Obama has proposed what he bills as payroll tax relief, but in actuality his plan calls for mailing subsidy checks to workers, and the plan it would not reduce the payroll tax burden on businesses.
--Most of the proposed stimulus spending pays for food stamps, extended unemployment benefits, more Medicaid, and infastructure projects that will only benefit a limited number of Americans. A payroll tax cut would benefit every working family in America.
Republicans won't win this one, but this would be a worthwhile hill to die on.
AmSpec MOBILE!
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 3:33PM
Maybe I'm
a little too excited by this, but we now have a very simple
mobile version of our daily news line-up. Point your iPhone,
Blackberry, Treo (ouch), Sidekick (yeesh), or whatever else to
http://m.spectator.org. Then
enjoy!
You can read the blog, recent articles, or click a link to look at the site as you would normally. It loads very quickly without images, so you can get your fix on the go.
UPDATE: I am informed by our programmers that, actually, you don't have to type in anything special. Just go to the regular Spectator.org site and it'll automatically put you on the mobile version. See? I *was* excited, wasn't I.
"Good Sales Man, Bad Product"
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 3:11PM
Jeff Flake twitters from President Obama's meeting with House Republicans.
Arts in Evolution
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 2:35PM
I echo Quin's sentiments about Updike's passing. One of the first things I had ever read of Updike's was a poem called Dog's Death. Updike's dog, despite his near-death condition, still manages to follow his house-training... dignity in all things.
Though surrounded by love that would have upheld her,
Nevertheless she sank and, stiffening, disappeared.
When I first heard Updike speak, it was at a Cornell, where he spoke to a large audience about his writing. Listening to Updike talk was like apple pie -- he had a slight tremble of age, and the furtiveness of the formerly shy. He almost went to Cornell, but wound up at Harvard (where all sorts of people "wind up") and so Cornell occupied a "warm furrow of" his heart.
Later, during a writer's workshop open to a small number of Ithaca locals and students, Updike noted that his Rabbit books spoke to a sense he had that the 1960s was a time of tragic upheaval. I can't remember the quote properly (and the article I had written about it for the Cornell Review isn't online), but he shocked the more liberal audience when he said: "Here you had an entire generation of people who were enjoying all the rights afforded to them by their country, yet unwilling to do anything to preserve them."
Though Updike did get involved with things that Tom Wolfe described as much too psychological, and some things that others felt were far too sexually lurid, he did manage to explore the internal conflicts of Americans caught between a sense of duty and an impending sense of anarchy. Take action and regret? Or pause and regret? In his novels, freedom was always a double-edged sword, and his characters were unfailingly uncertain as to what to do with it.
Now we should face no uncertainty about where Updike, now free of this earth, stands -- as a great man of letters. I hope to hear soon about how he worked as an editor. Undoubtedly, he did that well too.
If ever there was a signal to the new generation of writers that they were taking over, Updike's passing is one.
SarahPAC
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 2:05PM
Sarah Palin has formed a political action committee to support like-minded candidates and work for energy independence, among other issues. Website here.
Re: Rabbit, Rest...in Peace
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 1:56PM
Bill Simmons claimed that Updike's "Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu," recounting Ted Williams's final game, was the best sports essay ever written. I think that is a fairly safe statement. If you have never read it, take the time and enjoy it here.
RIP.
Rabbit, Rest... in Peace
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 1:47PM
The great American writer John Updike has died of lung cancer at age 76. I had mixed feelings about Updike. He was a tremendous lover of and user of the English language, and sometimes his insights and themes were profoundly life-affirming. At other times, he seemed to go off the deep end. He loved golf (great!) and my Red Sox (great!), and he had, at his best, a grace that allowed him to touch at times upon issues of faith in ways not wholly alien to traditionalists.
In one of Updike's short stories, the narrator asked: ""What is the past, after all, but a vast sheet of darkness in which a few moments, pricked apparently at random, shine?"
For all his tendency sometimes to absolutely celebrate the amoral or even the immoral in modern life, Updike's best writings, his best few moments -- picked not at random, but produced deliberately and with great skill -- shone indeed. R.I.P
Barack the Magic Hero
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 12:33PM
A black Nashville radio show host comes up with his own take on the song that bedeviled Chip Saltsman.
Standing Athwart?
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 12:17PM
Filmer, a commenter on this post, writes:
Part of the reason it is a PR minefield is because we allow it to be. We play by their PC rules. How does that change until someone takes the first step to buck those rigged rules?
The "Magic Negro" guy was Saltsman, not Dawson.
I've heard this argument before Filmer -- lots of our commenters say it. The basic point that we should be arguing "X" conservative principle, but we're too afraid to because it's not politically correct and the liberal establishment prohibits us. If only we could get a little braver, we could make these arguments, and do so in a way that will resonate with most Americans.
This is absurd. Does the person on welfare suddenly realize how terrible welfare is when you explain to him that the Constitution didn't explicitly allow Congress to do this? Did black people suddenly repudiate Martin Luther King, Jr. when others criticized him for being a socialist?
Media, whether liberal or not, has become a world of identity politics and a need for bullet points. When conservatives respond to this by puffing on pipes and adjusting suspenders and bowties, they send the message that they are unwilling to modernize. You don't get people on your side by being a fuddy-duddy, and you don't bludgeon the other side by becoming a caricature of yourself. Of course principle should lead the way, but what battles should you fight? Picking your battles is a necessity in war -- should everything be a Pickett's charge?
UPDATE: Actually, come to think of it, it's sort of like that old definition of insanity. When the battlefield changes, tactics need to change too. And sometimes, leadership needs changing too.
Obama's Mandate
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 11:53AM
According to this Washington Post poll, it's much less intimidating than I would have thought. Asked, "Do you think Obama has a mandate to carry out the agenda he presented during the presidential campaign, or should he compromise on the things the Republicans strongly oppose?" more Americans said he had a mandate, but only by a margin of 50 percent to 46 percent. Given his high approval ratings and Democratic control of Congress, Obama is pretty much going to get what he wants. However, this poll reminds us how tenuous the mandate is even for a tremendously popular president. Obama understands this, which is why he is eager to get Republican support that he doesn't need. For Republicans, there's no need to strengthen Obama's hand by giving him bipartisan cover for a bad bill that will balloon the deficit without helping the economy.
The Pelosi-Reid-Obama Debt Plan
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 11:47AM
That's what the Heritage Foundation has taken to calling the latest "fiscal stimulus" bill and rightly so. The package spends $825 billion that the government doesn't really have on projects of questionable import and every day it looks more and more like a congressional spending wish list justified by an economic emergency.
Democrats Against Geithner
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 11:23AM
Byron York has interesting excerpts from the anti-Geithner floor speeches of the three Senate Democrats to vote against confirming President Obama's Treasury nominee (Bernie Sanders is technically an independent). Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, and Robert Byrd did not believe Geitner's story about his failure to pay taxes.
Nothing But Trouble
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 10:16AM
From a New York Times story on the difficulty that FDR had in creating jobs in the 1930s:
“Roosevelt had some successes, but we hope that Obama is going to do better,” said Kenneth S. Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard. “Otherwise, we’re in trouble.”
Bad Day for Social Engineering
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 9:56AM
It looks like Planned Parenthood is just going to have to figure out its own way through the recession, as House Dems are going to drop the provisions for millions of dollars for contraceptives from the stimulus proposal. Apparently Nancy Pelosi's invocation of Malthus failed to turn the hearts of the Republicans. Maybe we have Obama to thank for this compromise, but what about saving the economy? After all, kids are expensive.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 9:22AM
- Catholic schools need an Obama shout-out (WSJ)
- What Milton Friedman's grandson is up to: seasteading (Wired)
- Bush left one big gift for Obama (Bloomberg)
- Arnold Kling breaks down the economic debate on the stimulus (The Atlantic)
- Ways for the CIA to gain competence before thinking about Iran (Washington Post)
- Dave Barry parades for the president on inauguration day (Miami Herald)
- Bush's mistakes were all related to his relentless expansion of government (Reason)
Iranian Nuclear Crisis
Posted by on 1.27.09 @ 9:18AM
Drudge has a sirens blaring headline screaming, "Iran Nuke 'This Year,'" though after reading the story he links to, it turns out the headline is unsurprisingly exaggerating things. The article cites a new report from the Institute for Strategic Studies concluding that "During 2009, Iran will probably reach the point at which it has produced the amount of low-enriched uranium needed to make a nuclear bomb," however it cautions that, "being able to enrich uranium is not the same as having a nuclear weapon." Still, the report further undermines the controversial U.S. National Intellegence Estimate that said Iran had halted it's nuclear program six years ago.
Whatever the timeline, this issue will almost definitely be coming to a head within Barack Obama's first term. Right now, Likud's Benyamin Netanyahu is the favorite to become Israel's new prime minister after next month's elections, and in an op-ed in yesterday's Jerusalem Post, he wrote, "the outcome of one issue will prove more important to Obama's presidency than all others: Will his administration succeed in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?" To Israelis, the threat of a nuclear Iran is existential in a way that their conflict with Hamas or Hezbollah is not (though of course both groups operate through money and weapons they receive from Iran). No Israeli prime minister would allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons without taking action to stop it, and this is especially true if Netanyahu does go on to win.
Obama, famously, promised during the campaign to conduct face-to-face talks with the leader of Iran without preconditions, yet now in office, his new U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said they would be willing to engage in lower level direct talks only if Iran suspended its uranium enrichment program. As Abe Greenwald pointed out, this is no different than the Bush administration policy. But a continuation of the Bush administration policy won't work, because Obama won't have the luxury of time.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Rabbit, R.I.P.
Posted by on 1.26.09 @ 6:52PM
The great American writer John Updike has died of lung cancer at age 76. I had mixed feelings about Updike. He was a tremendous lover of and user of the English language, and sometimes his insights and themes were profoundly life-affirming. At other times, he seemed to go off the deep end. He loved golf (great!) and my Red Sox (great!), and he had, at his best, a grace that allowed him to touch at times upon issues of faith in ways not wholly alien to traditionalists.
In one of Updike's short stories, the narrator asked: ""What is the past, after all, but a vast sheet of darkness in which a few moments, pricked apparently at random, shine?"
For all his tendency sometimes to absolutely celebrate the amoral or even the immoral in modern life, Updike's best writings, his best few moments -- picked not at random, but produced deliberately and with great skill -- shone indeed. R.I.P.
Treasury Secretary Geithner
Posted by on 1.26.09 @ 6:50PM
The Senate confirmed him by a vote of 60 to 34. Moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins was one of the no votes. Democrats Robert Byrd and Tom Harkin also voted against him because of his tax payment problems.
This... Blows....My...Mind
Posted by on 1.26.09 @ 6:49PM
Jake Tapper has the story. Guess who B. Hussein Obama is doing his very first formal TV interview as president with? Just guess. If I'm an Israeli, I would run, not walk, early and often, to vote for Binyamn Netanyahu for president there, because there ain't no way that Obama is gonna support Israel when push comes to shove -- so, therefore, the Israelis will need their leader to be a guy who is willing to do the pushing and shoving on his own regardless of whether the American president gives his okay.
Dump Duncan?
Posted by on 1.26.09 @ 6:13PM
Take a gander at this beauty:
Note that there's no response to question number three. It's a cliffhanger! Does this stuff really change RNC member minds? Probably not. But it hints at what many members are talking about: The rumor that Michael Steele is working to seal a deal with Duncan whereby Steele can be the mouthpiece for the RNC. Steele insiders are denying the point, which makes sense whether or not it's true.
Such a deal would allow Duncan to free himself of the baggage of the last failed cycle that many feel he shouldn't have to carry. It was, after all, Bush's party. Steele is an effective communicator. The only problem is that Steele is viewed as the candidate who would attempt to pull in more liberal Republican candidates into the party. Conservatives view this as a failing of Duncan's already -- and if he goes with a moderate, he could lose the conservative Republican activists in the vote to someone with an established conservative record like Ken Blackwell or Katon Dawson.
Katon Dawson and His GOP Mission
Posted by on 1.26.09 @ 2:54PM
Katon Dawson felt working for the GOP was necessary given what happened to him early on:
I've always been involved in politics. And I guess it goes all the way back to my school career and education. I, in the 1960s was a product of school segregation, where we took our schools and completely disbanded them, and made racial equality. Fifty-Fifty. And the kids had no choices. They closed Booker T. Washington, Blease, down here. A pretty good school. Closed it and sent the students to A. C. Flora, across town. And they did it over the summer because the laws had been changed by the politicians. And, the day that school opened, we were on CBS news with the busses turned upside down, and one of them lit on fire. By folks who didn't want to go to school there. Not folks who did.
The end of that story was, I was standing in a bathroom in public school... This scar over here [pointing to his forehead] was from a baseball bat. I will tell you it was a pretty harsh environment. Government reached into my life and grabbed me and shook me at the age of fifteen. I remember how blatant it was that government just thought that they knew better, that government just thought they knew better what to do in my school. And I can't say it was so much racial. I can say that people had a lot of stuff thrust on them because politicians thought they knew better.
Emphasis mine. Notwithstanding whether there might have been better ways to integrate schools than federal fiat (I've heard arguments to that end, but I'm not convinced), why is Katon Dawson on record saying this? That government reaching into his life during this time was something terrible. Is that something the GOP is going to want to defend if Dawson is elected?
UPDATE: David Weigel says, "To be fair to Dawson, he has been endorsed by two of the three black members of the RNC, and getting brained by a baseball bat is no fun."
When has "Some of my best friends are Black" ever resonated in a debate?
Holding Jindal Accountable
Posted by on 1.26.09 @ 2:32PM
Bobby Jindal continues to talk a better game than he delivers -- and I say this as a longtime supporter of his. This link is from the web site of C.B. Forgotston, a conservative tax and budget expert who spent seven years as a top aide for the state House Appropriations Committee. C.B. is no fan of Jindal's -- because, he says, Jindal doesn't actually walk his conservative talk. C.B. always has been mighty uncompromising, but then again, he usually lets actual facts do the talking, and facts don't compromise.
This isn't the first time Jindal has disappointed. His vaunted ethics reforms did indeed strengthen the RULES against ethical violations, but while he wasn't looking, the bad-ol'boys changed the STANDARDS governing ethics investigations to make it more difficult to bring charges in the first place. So Louisiana ended up with tougher rules that were, unfortunately, tougher to enforce.
My point here is not to slam Jindal. I actually think he is a sincere, reformist conservative. And he really is incredibly bright. But he (and his administration) are far from perfect, and if conservatives want Jindal to become a serious candidate to be their standard-bearer in the future, we must insist that he continue to improve his performance, in the details where it counts. He's awfully good at national PR. But he needs to continue to seek real excellence and live up to the standards he claims to profess -- because otherwise, if he is put forward as the Golden Boy but turns out to have feet of clay, he'll never survive the meat grinder of national media attention. It's a lot easier to pop the balloon of people whose whole reputation is based on being purer than newfallen snow than it is to drag down somebody who already is seen as a hard-nosed pol.
So conservatives must hold Jindal's feet to the fire. For our sake, and for his. His potential is almost limitless. His performance needs to stop lagging behind.
More on that Card Check Poll
Posted by on 1.26.09 @ 1:12PM
Marc Ambinder has some more information on the card check poll I posted earlier, as well as an AFL-CIO poll that shows similarly lopsided margins in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act's key provisions. The results depend heavily on how the questions are worded, with the AFL-CIO leaving out the fact the workers have less privacy in card check events than in secret ballot elections and the anti-card check pollster exaggerating the privacy angle in a highly loaded question. I think Ambinder understates the degree to which card check would stack the deck against secret ballot elections, but his conclusion is correct: card check makes it easier for unions to win than secret ballot elections. The point of the legislation is to increase unionization.
Anger and Outrage in Camelot
Posted by on 1.26.09 @ 12:49PM
On the main site today, Dan Flynn looks at the Kennedy family's long history of political reprisals against people who have denied them the prize. Flynn advises New York Gov. David Paterson to watch his back. If that didn't convince Paterson, perhaps this New York Post story will.
Incredible Inaugural Photo
Posted by on 1.26.09 @ 12:47PM
Viewable here. The resolution and detail is so amazing on that I was able to zoom in close enough not only to locate myself, but to see my pen as I was taking notes. David Bergman explains how he made the 1,474 megapixel photo from 220 seperate photographs.
Ann Coulter: Guilty of Gonzo?
Posted by on 1.26.09 @ 11:42AM
True, Barack Obama hasn't warned Republicans in Congress against her -- as he did with Rush Limbaugh -- but is there any figure on the Right who generates as much outrage as Ann Coulter? In the L.A. Times Sunday, Mickey Edwards made sure to name-check her:
The Republican Party that is in such disrepute today is not the party of Reagan. It is the party of Rush Limbaugh, of Ann Coulter, of Newt Gingrich, of George W. Bush, of Karl Rove. It is not a conservative party, it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of power.
Perhaps he meant "blonde and narrow"? Whatever. Her latest book, Guilty, is No. 2 on the New York Times bestseller list, and here's an unusual comparison to think about:
Given the Newtonian opposition of their political loyalties, and their vastly different literary ouevres, the fans of Hunter S. Thompson and the fans of Ann Coulter are very near to being mutually exclusive sets. A Venn diagram would show an almost infinitesimal overlap between Set A (those who admire the drug-addled king of gonzo) and Set B (those who admire the acid-tongued right-wing blonde). Yet as one of the few occupants of Set AB, I find striking parallels between the two, and wonder why others don't also see these parallels.
What kind of demented geek would write such lunatic gibberish?
Elevator Button Stimulus
Posted by on 1.26.09 @ 11:18AM
In the 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt created a raft of government programs and projects designed to revive the economy and increase employment, but between 1934 and 1940, unemployment never dipped below 14.3 percent, and the median annual rate was 17.2 percent. Yet politically, Roosevelt succeeded by creating the impression that somebody was doing something about the crisis. That's a similar phenomenon to what's happening today. The central argument in favor of the stimulus among its proponents is not over the merits of the particular legislation, but simply that we have to do something to revive the economy and that the crisis requires action. Psychologically, this reminds me of the man who is impatiently waiting for the elevator, and who continuously presses the already-lit elevator button even though he knows it won't make the elevator come any faster.
Union Workers Against Card Check
Posted by on 1.26.09 @ 11:01AM
The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace -- an organization, it should be noted, that opposes the Employee Free Choice Act -- has released a McLaughlin & Associates poll showing opposition to card check legislation among union households. The poll also included a larger sample of voters. Its findings, according to a statement:
- Three out of four voters (74%) oppose the "The Employee Free Choice Act”. Union households also strongly oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, 74% oppose to only 20% support.
- When given a more detailed description of the Employee Free Choice Act, nearly 9 out of 10 voters, 86%, feel the process should remain private and only 8% feel it should be public information. Again, even union workers feel strongly that the process should be kept private, as 88% said private and only 8% said public.
- Four out of five voters, or 82%, favor having a federally supervised election as a means to “protect the individual rights of workers”. The voters clearly see this as a basic right, especially given that only 11% of voters feel the card check would be the best way to protect the individual rights of workers. Support increases to 85% among union households.
- The majority (52% to 26%) of American voters believe that the Employee Free Choice Act is not good for job creation. Even among union households, the plurality (48%) believes that the Employee Free Choice Act will cost America jobs.
- In the current economic climate, 52% of voters are particularly opposed to any measure that would risk jobs or job growth.
- Further exemplifying the electorates’ distaste for the Employee Free Choice Act, 71% agreed that this legislation would be “unwise” and “risky”. In today’s economic climate, the electorate has little confidence in the federal government’s ability to make such major business decisions.
It would be interesting to see some of the precise wording, but it should be grist for the upcoming card check debate.
UPDATE: I look at the exact wording here and conclude it is wanting. Readers from liberal websites might want to check it out rather than simply take the word of people who can't tell the difference between and article and a blog post.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 1.26.09 @ 10:37AM
- Meanwhile, Pakistan undergoes Talibanization, with women catching the worst of it (Washington Post)
- Unsolvable problems for the US and Moscow (Culture11)
- Rush responds to Obama's attack, and lays waste to his Alinsky tactics (The Corner)
- Do you think Barney Frank will spend your money better than Toyota spends theirs? (Washington Times)
- Here's a good use for the stimulus money: replace our horrible unimaginative cartoonists (Politico)
- Some guidelines for a defensive pro-life movement (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
Fed on Steroids
Posted by on 1.26.09 @ 10:32AM
The Washington Post reports that House Democrats are working on legislation that would "put the Fed, or less likely another government agency, in charge of protecting the stability of the entire system." The bill is being spearheaded by Barney Frank and is expected to be finalized in the spring.
Last March, Hank Paulson had proposed this idea of using the Fed as a "Market Stability Regulator" that would combat systemic risk, and I panned it in a column.
I wrote:
THE IDEA OF creating a new Federal Reserve Board on steroids, with broad but ill-defined powers to jump in an out of the financial system like a character from The Matrix, is troubling.
Historically, government regulatory agencies are not known for showing restraint, and giving such discretionary power to a body that already operates independently and clandestinely is an added cause for concern.
Even if one assumes the best intentions from members of the Fed, we cannot forget that they are only human. As intelligent and well educated as they may be, they are just as capable of making mistakes as the clever bankers who bet billions on mortgage investments that turned sour.
Whenever there's a crisis, the solution in Washington is to appoint a grand overseer who will somehow gather all relevant information and marshall resources to prevent another crisis. This thinking was the genesis of the "intellegence czar" position created after the Sept. 11 attacks to "connect the dots" from all the different intellegence agencies. In reality, it just added another layer of bureaucracy while doing nothing to improve intellegence gathering.
The proposed SuperFed is even worse. The Fed's easy money interest rate policies are as responsible as any other factor for creating the housing bubble. At the time, then-Chairman Alan Greenspan argued that housing prices were more of a local phenomenon, and concluded that a national bubble was "unlikely." If the Fed couldn't handle its task of managing monetary policy, then why would anybody expect that it would be able to handle much broader powers?
Kristol Out, N.Y. Times' Loss
Posted by on 1.26.09 @ 2:15AM
At the end of his weekly New York Times column today comes this cold announcement: "This is William Kristol's last column." That completes the rout of Nov. 4, 2008. There'll be dancing in the liberal streets. And so we have that rarity in today's economically declining media -- someone let go for purely political reasons. On top of that, someone let go who is its lone conservative voice and a most readable, not only Washington- but New York-savvy voice.
Kristol notes in his piece that Jan. 20, 2009 marked the end of a conservative era, and challenges liberalism to defend liberty to the same extent the right has since the election of Ronald Reagan. Or to the extent FDR did. President Obama's success, he writes, will depend on whether he follows their lead. Dinner with Barack Obama didn't save Kristol at the Times, but it did give him the last word. And now the Times can return to talking to itself.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
You've Just Got to Love Nationalized Health Care
Posted by on 1.25.09 @ 4:20PM
America's medical system is an expensive mess, but one reason that's the case is because it doesn't go out of its way to deprive people of needed care to save money. Great Britain spends far less, but you'd better hope that you don't get seriously ill and require extraordinary treatment.
The family of a woman with an inoperable brain tumour raised over £130,000 to send her for treatment in America - only to discover that the NHS could have referred her if her local trust had realised it was possible.
The case reveals an "information lottery" in the NHS - a variation on the postcode kind - where access to treatment is dependent on who patients (and their doctors) know, not on their clinical need.
Melissa Huggins, 27, a primary school teacher, is due to fly to Boston tomorrow to be assessed for high-energy proton treatment, a specialised form of radiotherapy delivered by a 70 ton machine that costs £100m. Expenses for the trip will be met from "Melissa's fighting fund" established by her boyfriend, James Pegram, a structural engineer, in October.
...
Proton treatment is not available in the UK because of the expense. Ministers agreed last year to set up a "reference panel" in Leeds to send cancer patients abroad for treatment to Switzerland, Paris and Boston. So far, 25 patients have been assessed and 18 referred for treatment, at NHS expense.
Ms Huggins and her family did not learn about the NHS scheme until after they had made contact with the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, ruling them out of consideration.
When the Clintons tried to "reform" health care in 1993, they forgot that the bottom line was caring for the sick rather than establishing a really neat new bureaucracy. Let's hope the Obama administration does better when it addresses the issue.
Governor's Appointments
Posted by on 1.25.09 @ 3:45PM
Russ Feingold is a fan of ridding us of the maddening tendency of governors to appoint senators when seats are vacant:
In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so thatthe Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute. As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.
Brian Beutler thinks this is a good idea:
It's certainly a good (and probably popular) idea, and at the very least, it will raise consciousness of the issue at the state level, and perhaps we'll get there in piecemeal fashion.
Well, the Seventeenth Amendment wasn't about democratizing the Senate so much as it was about how tenuous and difficult it was to have state legislatures elect senators, particularly during unexpected vacancies. While Feingold tries to make it sound otherwise, the whole gubernatorial appointment process was something provided for in the Seventeenth Amendment, whereby states, if they so choose, could allow governors to make the appointments for the sake of expediency. To wit:
Clause 2. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
And what do you know! States have varied in what they wanted, but they decided it for themselves. If the state legislature of Illinois feels they shouldn't endow their historically corrupt governor's office with the ability to make the appointments, they can make that decision themselves. We don't need a constitutional convention to figure this out.
In Indiana during the civil war, the state legislature was so divided, the senate seat remained vacant for two years. In other states, such elections were prone to corruption and bribery, and were hardly uniform. Even when laws were passed to make these procedures more uniform, the process was still inefficient. When I made this point today on Fox News, Eric Shawn argued that "this isn't the 19th century anymore." Well, yes, but that doesn't mean corruption and bribery have gone away, and come to think of it, that's the very problem we're dealing with when we're looking at this issue.
As always, I find it ironic when Senator Feingold talks about making things more responsive to the people, when his own "campaign finance reform" legislation has bound and gagged those very people from forming an association and advertising their position prior to an election. (Turns out, voters are special interests too.) Why is it that whenever he suggests making things more "responsive" to voters it always involves taking away voters' rights?
Let's not forget: If someone dies in office with one year left, the state will have to fund a special election, during which a number of political hopefuls will spend even more money trying to get elected. Then they'll have to go through it all over again one year later. This makes no sense. Special elections cost a great deal of money, as we've learned from the Democratic Party's unwillingness to do a revote for their Florida primary.
The Senate was intended to be the deliberative body with more distance from "the people" than the House (exemplified by the tradition of secret holds, filibusters, 6 year terms, etc.). Senators were initially elected by state legislatures for this very purpose. And yet "the people" have plenty of control over how their senators come to office -- it's one thing that they can come together to do as a state. If they don't like governor appointed senators, they can change this for themselves. Russ Feingold can fix the Constitution elsewhere.
UPDATE: Part of the whole reason I wound up writing this post was Chad Pergram's interesting write-up on shadow senators in history. This speaks to the fact that "shadow senators" don't usually last very long in office. This may be because they have limited time to make an impact, or because they lack the political capital from a victorious election. Either way, good stuff.
In Defense of Ben Stein
Posted by on 1.25.09 @ 2:40PM
Yves Smith accuses Ben Stein of "ask[ing] us to feel sorry for wildly irresponsible people," because of Stein's New York Times column today:
Not long ago, a woman in California called me for advice. She is divorced, with two children, and has a series of interlocking financial problems. She lives in a lovely home in a stylish inland enclave. It has an interest-only mortgage of about $2.2 million that requires a payment of $12,000 a month, very roughly. It was last appraised at $2.7 million, but who knows if it’s now worth anything remotely close to that price. The woman, whom I’ve known since she was a teenager, has no job or other remunerative employment. She has a former husband, an entrepreneur whose business has suffered recently. He pays her $20,000 a month, of which roughly half is alimony and half child support. The alimony is scheduled to stop this summer.
Is Stein asking us to "feel sorry" for this woman? No:
What could I say? I did the best I could, but I had to tell her that she was on very thin ice.
This is the closest that Stein, a gracious human being, will come to saying, "Sweetheart, you're screwed, blued and tattooed." What Stein is saying -- the moral of the story, as it were -- is that even people we think of as "rich" can get themselves in over their heads. Here is a woman living in a mansion (even in California, $2 million buys a lot of house) and receiving nearly a quarter-million a year in alimony, and yet she is on the verge of bankruptcy.
Stein writes with a sort of Gestalt technique, allowing the reader to draw his own conclusions. He is too much the gentleman to say directly that this woman, his longtime friend, is an irresponsible twit. Rather, he turns without comment and begins relating his own father's words of wisdom about the importance of such sturdy virtues as diligence, thrift and self-reliance -- virtues his soon-to-be-impoverished divorcee friend quite obviously lacks. The big risk in the Gestalt technique of essay-writing is that some people might miss your point, which Yves Smith does spectacularly:
Stein is trying to give us a morality tale of sorts, but his object lesson is so far removed from the most common manifestations of the debt disease that it sheds no light on the issue.
Smith is angry at Stein for using this rich woman as an example of a problem of which she is, in fact, a very good example: Anyone who lives above their means is at risk of disaster, however great their means may be. Given that Stein's larger (implied) point is that America's tremendous wealth hasn't prevented America from suffering an economic disaster caused by excessive debt, the woman he chooses as his example is an apt choice. And given that Barack Obama and the Democrats now plan to "fix" our problem with another $800 billion or so in deficit spending, it seems that Yves Smith is not the only one who has missed the moral of Stein's story.
- Progressive Derangements
- Let's Return to the Gold Standard
- The Collapse of Jon Corzine
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
