It's hard to put into a box just who is supporting Dede Scozzafava in New York's 23rd special election and who is supporting Doug Hoffman in the same. At first, I thought it was the so called establishment supporting Scozzafava and those on the outside looking in supporting Hoffman. Yet, how do you explain the likes of Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann supporting Hoffman? I thought it was the conservatives in support of Hoffman and party loyalists in support of Scozzafava? How do you explain Newt Gingrich supporting Scozzafava?
In fact, what's remarkable about this race is two things, 1) you can't put into a box those who support Scozzafava and those who support Hoffman and 2) the race has unnecessarily taken on more significance than it ever needed to take on. This isn't the first special election and most aren't this controversial. In fact, here in the 5th district of Illinois we had one right after the election when Rahm Emanuel, who then held it, went on to become Chief of Staff in the White House. Both the Democrats and the Republicans held a primary and eventually Mike Quigley replaced Emanuel.
Therein lies the first problem. Dede Scozzafava wasn't chosen by the voters but rather in a dark room by power brokers. Insiders seem to never learn. When you choose someone in secret, with no transparency, the voters revolt. Such a corrupted process almost always leads to a flawed choice. For reasons that are still unclear, party insiders chose a moderate if not flat out liberal, Dede Scozzafava, for a seat that has comfortably gone to a Republican since 1871.
The race in 5th District took on almost no national signifcance. Plenty of local Democrats and Republicans ran. The people had a vote and a new Congressman was elected. In fact, about 10% of the registered voters voted. The race couldn't have been less interesting. This one has received attention from coast to coast. It starts with the process and ends with the selection of Scozzafava.
Dede Scozzafava has become the symbol, for many Conservatives, for what is wrong with the Republican Party. The Tea Party movement has decided to draw a line in the sand and flex its muscle electorally. Political heavyweights like Fred Thompson, Sarah Palin, and Dick Armey have all weighed in. Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have been asked to weigh in. You'd think that we are nominating the president with all the attention of this race. Instead, it's a special election for the New York 23rd District of the U.S. Congress. Even after elected, this same person will have to be reelected in a year.
The consequences of this race can't be minimized. At some point, the Minuteman movement also decided to flex its electoral muscle. They backed Randy Graff in Arizona and Graff got crushed. JD Hayworth allied himself with the Minutemen and he is now a talk radio host. From there, the Minutemen became a marginalized group. That's what is at stake with the Tea Party movement. If this race goes to Hoffman, then the Tea Party movement has moved from an organizational force to an electoral force. If Hoffman loses, then the Tea Party movement will go the way of the Minuteman movement.
Meanwhile, if Scozzafava loses, what does that do the Republican establishment. If Scozzafava loses then the Republican establishment has no credibility electorally. If a candidate beats their candidate and they do it using all outside resources then the Republican establishment has little electoral power. If that's the case, what is the future of the party at large? If the Tea Party movement becomes the driving force in the Republican Party how will that transform the party? Those are all questions that remain unanswered but they'll need to be asked because of the dynamic of New York's 23rd.
Showing posts with label Mike Huckabee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mike Huckabee. Show all posts
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Mr. President: Here's My Nickel's Worth of Free Advice
Over the last few days, the media is reporting on growing speculation that the president is considering or even ready to propose a value added tax. In this way, President Obama would share some ideological similarities with Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee is also in favor of a value added tax, though he calls it a consumption tax or the fair tax. There is however a huge difference between Mike Huckabe and President Obama. Mike Huckabee proposes that all we have is a value added or consumption tax. Meanwhile, President Obama wants a value added tax on top of all the other taxes.
The idea first gained media attention most recently when it was suggested by John Podesta of the Center for American Progress. that the value added tax was more plausible than ever earlier in the week. Podesta, according to D.C. insiders, is believed to have significant influence over the current White House and was the Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton. His think tank CAP then held a conference in which all the powerful liberal economic thinkers all got on board in support of the idea of the value added tax.
Supporters of the VAT say it is a great revenue generator and they also say it encourages savings. It maybe a great revenue generator but that's because it takes a lot of money out of the hands of the citizens. Taxes affect behavior. So a tax on consumption would reduce consumption which would increase savings. That said, we're in a recession and we need more consumer spending. Now, we're going to have a tax on spending. Does that sound smart now?
Politically, however, the idea is even worse. The president must understand that if he breaks his pledge not to tax anyone earning under $250,000 a year, his presidency is over. That's not a broken promise he recovers from. There is no equivocation or explanation that will help him if there is a broad based tax on those earning less than $250,000. Now, opponents like me were dubious that the president could engage in the sort of spending he has and keep that pledge. This is exactly such a tax.
The president has added a cigarette tax. He's added several credits for low income folks. He wants to add a penalty for not getting health insurance. He wants to cut some credits for charitable giving. He also wants to complicate the tax code regarding corporate taxes. If the VAT were all part of a tax overhaul that simplified the tax code, that would be something most would applaud, however it's clear that the president has no use for simplifying the tax code. Everything he's done has complicated the tax code. Now, he's thinking about adding a VAT on top of it. If the president were to officially support such an idea, that would be it. It would be the George HW Bush equivalent of a promise broken. So, my advice is to stop listening to the far left on this. This tax is a bad policy idea and a much worse political idea.
The idea first gained media attention most recently when it was suggested by John Podesta of the Center for American Progress. that the value added tax was more plausible than ever earlier in the week. Podesta, according to D.C. insiders, is believed to have significant influence over the current White House and was the Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton. His think tank CAP then held a conference in which all the powerful liberal economic thinkers all got on board in support of the idea of the value added tax.
Supporters of the VAT say it is a great revenue generator and they also say it encourages savings. It maybe a great revenue generator but that's because it takes a lot of money out of the hands of the citizens. Taxes affect behavior. So a tax on consumption would reduce consumption which would increase savings. That said, we're in a recession and we need more consumer spending. Now, we're going to have a tax on spending. Does that sound smart now?
Politically, however, the idea is even worse. The president must understand that if he breaks his pledge not to tax anyone earning under $250,000 a year, his presidency is over. That's not a broken promise he recovers from. There is no equivocation or explanation that will help him if there is a broad based tax on those earning less than $250,000. Now, opponents like me were dubious that the president could engage in the sort of spending he has and keep that pledge. This is exactly such a tax.
The president has added a cigarette tax. He's added several credits for low income folks. He wants to add a penalty for not getting health insurance. He wants to cut some credits for charitable giving. He also wants to complicate the tax code regarding corporate taxes. If the VAT were all part of a tax overhaul that simplified the tax code, that would be something most would applaud, however it's clear that the president has no use for simplifying the tax code. Everything he's done has complicated the tax code. Now, he's thinking about adding a VAT on top of it. If the president were to officially support such an idea, that would be it. It would be the George HW Bush equivalent of a promise broken. So, my advice is to stop listening to the far left on this. This tax is a bad policy idea and a much worse political idea.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Vertical Politics and the Future of the Republican Party
In his book, Do the Right Thing, Mike Huckabee talked about the concepts of vertical and horizontal politics. Horizontal politics is when solutions to policy are figured out based on ideology. In other words, whatever is the issue, the individual tries to figure out how their ideology should deal with the issue. Vertical politics is when someone just tries to figure out what the solution is and doesn't worry about how that applies to ideology. Huckabee made the point that most voters want people that solve problems. They aren't ideological and so they aren't as impressed with ideological solutions. Explain to someone how a policy will help them and that is the person they will vote for.
Huckabee made the centerpiece of his vertical politics agenda his support for the fair tax. The fair tax idea would eliminate all taxes except sales taxes. It would mean the end to the income tax and so with it the IRS. He said that one of the reasons he became a supporter of the fair tax was because he met an individual that took on a second job so he could help his daughter pay for Cornell Graduate School. The gentleman told him that as a result of his second job, he entered the next tax bracket and so much of his gross income go to extra taxes. As such, he made very little extra after tax money. Huckabee saw this as a fatally flawed system. Why punish hard work and extra income? The fair tax would stop all of this. It would also allow everyone to control just how much in taxes they would pay because it would only tax what you bought.
Huckabee was the only Republican candidate talking about the difficulties Americans were having paying their bills, getting health care, and sending their kids to school. Furthermore, he was demonized by much of the other candidates for doing so. In the Republican primary, it was next to heresy to dare to suggest that Americans were struggling. The Democrats, on the other hand, couldn't get enough of telling Americans they were struggling. Furthermore, they promised everyone everyone of their problems would be fixed. The Republicans were speaking in theory while the Democrats were speaking in practical terms. While Barack Obama was promising to cut taxes on 95% of Americans, John McCain was making vague allusions to lower taxes. That isn't enough. Tax cuts must be specific and they must be real. That's the only way voters will see them in their own pockets.
The challenge for Republicans going forward is to apply their ideals to vertical politics. On this point, I totally disagree with Rush Limbaugh. The idea that Republicans can simply espouse the concepts of small government, lower taxes, and less spending and win is nonsense. In fact, what the Republicans must do is apply these concepts to real life and show how they will make the life of the voters better.
For instance, I thought that John McCain lost a real opportunity in not exposing then candidate Obama's tax plan for the house of cards that it is. While President Obama shouted 95% of people would get a tax cut, John McCain should have shown what would happen to everyone with the tax increase on the other 5%. I thought that McCain should have spent the better part of a month touring successful small businesses, those in the 5%, and asking the owners what would happen as a result of this tax increase. What would happen is that they would have to downsize. That would mean less jobs, less raises, and it would mean that they would have to cut back on orders from their suppliers, less successful small businesses. Furthermore, McCain needed to have the small business owners themselves. It isn't enough for Republicans themselves to say it. In fact, Republicans need to seek out successful small business owners and ask them and have them say it.
Telling Americans that tax cuts are good is no longer enough. Republicans need to be specific. In fact, Sarah Palin was extremely good at doing just this. She often spoke of friends that owned small businesses, like gas stations, and talked about what would happen to their small businesses as a result of tax increases.
It goes beyond simply making it personal. Republicans need to have specifics, and these specifics need to be simple. That's why the fair tax is one such idea. No one likes the IRS and so eliminating it is something all Americans would get excited about. Instead, John McCain talked about the vague concepts of lowering spending which would lower taxes. Well, such vague ideas aren't going to work when the other side says that 95% of all Americans will see their tax burden lowered.
In fact, Republicans were at their best in 2008 when they were practicing vertical politics. That happened on the issue of off shore drilling. When gas prices rose above $4 per gallon, the Republicans immediately got behind opening our shores to drilling. Why? It's because more drilling means more supply of oil. More supply of oil means that gasoline prices would go down. That was something that each individual voter could understand. In fact, on this issue it was the Democrats that were practicing theoretical horizontal politics. In the name of "saving the environment", the Democrats continued to resist off shore drilling. It cost them electorally.
It is, however, on the issue of health care where the Republican party has lost all sense of reality. While the Democrats not only promise that all uninsured will have coverage but everyone's rates will go down, the Republicans simply demonize government health care and bow down to the free market. That is the horizontal politics at its worst. I believe in these concepts as well, however the average voter is not going to be swayed when the other side is promising them the world. Now, take a look at how John Stossel defends free markets in health care.
This is the way that conservative principles can be applied to vertical politics. Yet, you will never hear a Republican apply conservative principles to such real life examples. It is not enough anymore to simply be for free markets. Republicans must explain how and why free market ideas are the answer to more affordable health care. Republicans must explain how and why government intervention has lead to sky rocketing costs. For instance, there are mini monopolies in health insurance. In most states, one insurance company dominates the state and creates a monopoly in health insurance. That's because health insurance providers created a loophole to Sherman to allow this sort of mini monopolies. Republicans need to come with detailed, but simple, free market solutions and they must show how these solutions will create lower health care costs for all.
In much the same way, the issue of illegal immigration is the same. It isn't enough to call for sealing the borders. The Republican party has to show just how much it costs to allow twenty plus million people costs the citizens. States like Arizona and California are all going bank rupt in part because of the costs of maintaining this illegal immigrant population. Break down this cost per tax payer and show how much illegal immigration costs. Republicans need to make a real connection between the unemployment rate and illegal immigration. Give estimates about how how many jobs illegal immigrants currently have under the table. Show how many jobs Americans lose as a result of illegal immigration. That's how Republicans would make this issue work vertically.
I think the future of politics is in this idea of vertical politics. If the Republican party thinks it heresy to acknowledge that people are struggling, they will continue to get crushed. If their ideas continue to be theoretical, they will continue to get crushed. Unless and until, the Republican party shows how their ideas will help each voter they will continue to get crushed.
Huckabee made the centerpiece of his vertical politics agenda his support for the fair tax. The fair tax idea would eliminate all taxes except sales taxes. It would mean the end to the income tax and so with it the IRS. He said that one of the reasons he became a supporter of the fair tax was because he met an individual that took on a second job so he could help his daughter pay for Cornell Graduate School. The gentleman told him that as a result of his second job, he entered the next tax bracket and so much of his gross income go to extra taxes. As such, he made very little extra after tax money. Huckabee saw this as a fatally flawed system. Why punish hard work and extra income? The fair tax would stop all of this. It would also allow everyone to control just how much in taxes they would pay because it would only tax what you bought.
Huckabee was the only Republican candidate talking about the difficulties Americans were having paying their bills, getting health care, and sending their kids to school. Furthermore, he was demonized by much of the other candidates for doing so. In the Republican primary, it was next to heresy to dare to suggest that Americans were struggling. The Democrats, on the other hand, couldn't get enough of telling Americans they were struggling. Furthermore, they promised everyone everyone of their problems would be fixed. The Republicans were speaking in theory while the Democrats were speaking in practical terms. While Barack Obama was promising to cut taxes on 95% of Americans, John McCain was making vague allusions to lower taxes. That isn't enough. Tax cuts must be specific and they must be real. That's the only way voters will see them in their own pockets.
The challenge for Republicans going forward is to apply their ideals to vertical politics. On this point, I totally disagree with Rush Limbaugh. The idea that Republicans can simply espouse the concepts of small government, lower taxes, and less spending and win is nonsense. In fact, what the Republicans must do is apply these concepts to real life and show how they will make the life of the voters better.
For instance, I thought that John McCain lost a real opportunity in not exposing then candidate Obama's tax plan for the house of cards that it is. While President Obama shouted 95% of people would get a tax cut, John McCain should have shown what would happen to everyone with the tax increase on the other 5%. I thought that McCain should have spent the better part of a month touring successful small businesses, those in the 5%, and asking the owners what would happen as a result of this tax increase. What would happen is that they would have to downsize. That would mean less jobs, less raises, and it would mean that they would have to cut back on orders from their suppliers, less successful small businesses. Furthermore, McCain needed to have the small business owners themselves. It isn't enough for Republicans themselves to say it. In fact, Republicans need to seek out successful small business owners and ask them and have them say it.
Telling Americans that tax cuts are good is no longer enough. Republicans need to be specific. In fact, Sarah Palin was extremely good at doing just this. She often spoke of friends that owned small businesses, like gas stations, and talked about what would happen to their small businesses as a result of tax increases.
It goes beyond simply making it personal. Republicans need to have specifics, and these specifics need to be simple. That's why the fair tax is one such idea. No one likes the IRS and so eliminating it is something all Americans would get excited about. Instead, John McCain talked about the vague concepts of lowering spending which would lower taxes. Well, such vague ideas aren't going to work when the other side says that 95% of all Americans will see their tax burden lowered.
In fact, Republicans were at their best in 2008 when they were practicing vertical politics. That happened on the issue of off shore drilling. When gas prices rose above $4 per gallon, the Republicans immediately got behind opening our shores to drilling. Why? It's because more drilling means more supply of oil. More supply of oil means that gasoline prices would go down. That was something that each individual voter could understand. In fact, on this issue it was the Democrats that were practicing theoretical horizontal politics. In the name of "saving the environment", the Democrats continued to resist off shore drilling. It cost them electorally.
It is, however, on the issue of health care where the Republican party has lost all sense of reality. While the Democrats not only promise that all uninsured will have coverage but everyone's rates will go down, the Republicans simply demonize government health care and bow down to the free market. That is the horizontal politics at its worst. I believe in these concepts as well, however the average voter is not going to be swayed when the other side is promising them the world. Now, take a look at how John Stossel defends free markets in health care.
Health-care costs overall have been rising faster than inflation, but not all medical costs are skyrocketing. In a few pockets of medicine, costs are down while quality is up.
Dr. Brian Bonanni has an unusual medical practice. His office is open Saturdays. He e-mails his patients and gives them his cell-phone number.
"I need to be available 24 hours a day," he says. "I want to be there when a patient has questions, and I want to be reachable."
...
His patients shop around before coming to him. They ask a question that people relying on insurance don't ask: "How much will that cost?"
"I can't get away with not telling the patient how much exactly it's going to cost," Bonanni says. "No one would put up with it. And the difference of a hundred dollars sometimes makes their decision for them."
...
Prices have fallen and quality has risen in other medical fields where most people pay for care themselves, like cosmetic surgery. Consumer power works -- even in medicine.
When government and insurance companies are kept away from the transaction, good new things happen.
This is the way that conservative principles can be applied to vertical politics. Yet, you will never hear a Republican apply conservative principles to such real life examples. It is not enough anymore to simply be for free markets. Republicans must explain how and why free market ideas are the answer to more affordable health care. Republicans must explain how and why government intervention has lead to sky rocketing costs. For instance, there are mini monopolies in health insurance. In most states, one insurance company dominates the state and creates a monopoly in health insurance. That's because health insurance providers created a loophole to Sherman to allow this sort of mini monopolies. Republicans need to come with detailed, but simple, free market solutions and they must show how these solutions will create lower health care costs for all.
In much the same way, the issue of illegal immigration is the same. It isn't enough to call for sealing the borders. The Republican party has to show just how much it costs to allow twenty plus million people costs the citizens. States like Arizona and California are all going bank rupt in part because of the costs of maintaining this illegal immigrant population. Break down this cost per tax payer and show how much illegal immigration costs. Republicans need to make a real connection between the unemployment rate and illegal immigration. Give estimates about how how many jobs illegal immigrants currently have under the table. Show how many jobs Americans lose as a result of illegal immigration. That's how Republicans would make this issue work vertically.
I think the future of politics is in this idea of vertical politics. If the Republican party thinks it heresy to acknowledge that people are struggling, they will continue to get crushed. If their ideas continue to be theoretical, they will continue to get crushed. Unless and until, the Republican party shows how their ideas will help each voter they will continue to get crushed.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Huckabee Vs. Obama: A Thought Experiment
As I have watched the campaign unfold, I can't help but get a troubling feeling out of my head. Did the GOP choose the wrong guy to face off with Barack Obama? Would another candidate have changed the dynamic and likely beat Obama as badly as he appears to be beating Senator John McCain. Now, unfortunately, at the beginning of the year, when the Republican primary effectively ended, the nature of the way in which the race appeared to be is NOT the way in which the race wound up being. It appeared that national security would share the spotlight with the economy. One of the reasons that John McCain wound up grabbing the nomination is the tragic irony of the timing of the killing of Benazir Bhutto. With national security grabbing headlines right around the vote in New Hampshire, John McCain had the election timed on issues relating to his best traits.
Mike Huckabee has four things that John McCain doesn't: charisma, no discernible connection to President Bush, a consistent economic populist message, and opposition to the bailout. Watching John McCain debate Barack Obama, I couldn't help but wonder just how Huckabee would have handled Obama. McCain missed several opportunities in debates to point out that Barack Obama's tax policies were nothing more than income redistribution. It took Joe the Plumber to do it. I don't think that it would have taken an unlikely surrogate for Mike Huckabee to do it. John McCain also missed many opportunities to point out that Barack Obama's tax policies would include tax cuts for 40% of the population that currently pays ZERO in federal income taxes. This is yet another opportunity that Mike Huckabee wouldn't have missed. In fact, anyone that saw Huckabee debate knows that he would have fared far better than McCain did.
The other thing is that Huckabee ran on an economic populist message from the beginning. He didn't come late with a message in fighting for the little guy. He was talking about the pinch of the middle class, foreclosures, and high health care bills. In fact, Huckabee's message was so populist, economically, that his opponents effectively painted as liberal. Of course, this was a bit of a distortion. In fact, Huckabee had the innovative conservative idea of the fair tax. Putting Huckabee's fair tax against Obama's income redistribution proposal would have been the kind of contrast that would have made a real distinction. Rather than fumbling through an explanation of why we need to cut corporate taxes, we would have had a charismatic salesman selling an innovative tax idea. Rather than a debate over who should and shouldn't get tax cuts, we would have a debate over a change in a failed tax code and a revolutionary change to the tax code.
Where Huckabee would have wound up with the most traction is the bailout. He is one of the few politician to come out against the bailout. I believe John McCain lost the election when he supported the Bush bailout. This was an opportunity to distance himself from Bush and instead, John McCain doubled down on "a bi partisan proposal". Rather than running away from President Bush while Obama was siding with Bush, McCain took the easy way out and signed onto the bailout. Furthermore, he doubled down on his own quasi socialism when he proposed a massive bailout of borrowers. Neither of these are small government, fiscally conservative ideas, and neither would be supported by Huckabee. It muddies the waters when you call your opponent quasi socialist when you yourself propose quasi socialist ideas. Imagine the debate as the bailout was being debated. Imagine Mike Huckabee firmly saying that bailing out the irresponsible is not something he would sign onto. Now, on the single most important issue it would have been Senator Barack Obama that was allied with President Bush, and it would be Mike Huckabee that ran against President Bush. The bailout is overwhelmingly rejected. By running fiercely against the bailout, Huckabee would have pulled off the greatest political jujitsu. He would have hung the President Bush noose around Senator Obama. The centerpiece of Senator Obama's current attacks would wind up being used against him.
I believe for these four reasons mean the Republicans picked the wrong candidate and had they picked Mike Huckabee we would see a Republican in the White House.
Mike Huckabee has four things that John McCain doesn't: charisma, no discernible connection to President Bush, a consistent economic populist message, and opposition to the bailout. Watching John McCain debate Barack Obama, I couldn't help but wonder just how Huckabee would have handled Obama. McCain missed several opportunities in debates to point out that Barack Obama's tax policies were nothing more than income redistribution. It took Joe the Plumber to do it. I don't think that it would have taken an unlikely surrogate for Mike Huckabee to do it. John McCain also missed many opportunities to point out that Barack Obama's tax policies would include tax cuts for 40% of the population that currently pays ZERO in federal income taxes. This is yet another opportunity that Mike Huckabee wouldn't have missed. In fact, anyone that saw Huckabee debate knows that he would have fared far better than McCain did.
The other thing is that Huckabee ran on an economic populist message from the beginning. He didn't come late with a message in fighting for the little guy. He was talking about the pinch of the middle class, foreclosures, and high health care bills. In fact, Huckabee's message was so populist, economically, that his opponents effectively painted as liberal. Of course, this was a bit of a distortion. In fact, Huckabee had the innovative conservative idea of the fair tax. Putting Huckabee's fair tax against Obama's income redistribution proposal would have been the kind of contrast that would have made a real distinction. Rather than fumbling through an explanation of why we need to cut corporate taxes, we would have had a charismatic salesman selling an innovative tax idea. Rather than a debate over who should and shouldn't get tax cuts, we would have a debate over a change in a failed tax code and a revolutionary change to the tax code.
Where Huckabee would have wound up with the most traction is the bailout. He is one of the few politician to come out against the bailout. I believe John McCain lost the election when he supported the Bush bailout. This was an opportunity to distance himself from Bush and instead, John McCain doubled down on "a bi partisan proposal". Rather than running away from President Bush while Obama was siding with Bush, McCain took the easy way out and signed onto the bailout. Furthermore, he doubled down on his own quasi socialism when he proposed a massive bailout of borrowers. Neither of these are small government, fiscally conservative ideas, and neither would be supported by Huckabee. It muddies the waters when you call your opponent quasi socialist when you yourself propose quasi socialist ideas. Imagine the debate as the bailout was being debated. Imagine Mike Huckabee firmly saying that bailing out the irresponsible is not something he would sign onto. Now, on the single most important issue it would have been Senator Barack Obama that was allied with President Bush, and it would be Mike Huckabee that ran against President Bush. The bailout is overwhelmingly rejected. By running fiercely against the bailout, Huckabee would have pulled off the greatest political jujitsu. He would have hung the President Bush noose around Senator Obama. The centerpiece of Senator Obama's current attacks would wind up being used against him.
I believe for these four reasons mean the Republicans picked the wrong candidate and had they picked Mike Huckabee we would see a Republican in the White House.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Why Do We Do It This Way, Again?
So, the first sets of primaries are almost over. The Dems will have their first in the South, SC, later this week and then everyone will focus on Florida. It is time again for my primary rant, and to ask why do we do it this way again?
Let's look at some of the things that happened. Mike Huckabee won in Iowa on the strength of a huge Christian Conservative contingent. That is all well and good but Iowa is in no way representative of the rest of the country in terms of the representation of Christian Conservatives in the Republican party. John McCain won in NH. NH is a state with a heavy independent contingent. He appealed to independents, who number about as many as Reps and Dems, and went on to victory. In Michigan, Mitt Romney rode his native son status to victory.
On the Democratic side, we have had three major states vote and as of yet there has not been any significant numbers of African Americans able to vote. Worse than that, in Iowa only 200,000 people voted for both parties. Thus, 200,000 people played a vital role in an election for a country with a population of about 300,000,000.
Ethanol is an alternative fuel that has been explored for viability as an alternative to petroleum. Some believe it gets too much exploration. Studies have found that the best case scenario would have only about 15% of our automobiles being powered by ethanol. Well, John Stossel, among many, believes that ethanol gets too much attention because Iowa, a state with a plethora of corn, is the first state to vote in the primaries.
So, why do we do it this way again? What I can't understand is how two relatively unimportant states have held the rest of the country hostage and forced their will upon it. Why again is it that these two states are always the first two to vote? There is absolutely no logical rhyme or reason for having them ALWAYS go first, and I have pointed out one piece of evidence of how this dynamic twists our politics.
By having Iowa and NH go first every single time, what we do is create winners out of candidates best suited to field those states. These two relatively small states have unique demographic makeup. You saw how well Huckabee took advantage of it in Iowa, and how effective it was for McCain. You see how it has caused Rudy to stay down low until Florida and caused him to ride an extremely risky strategy. Furthermore, Barack Obama has not been able to compete in a state where African Americans make up a large contingent yet. Had Hillary won both Iowa and NH, this race would have been virtually over before any significant numbers of African Americans had voted.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why the rest of the nation cedes so much power to these two states. Michigan moved its primary up and the DNC cancelled their delegates and the state was moot for them. Yet, Iowa and NH insist that they go first every single time, and no one challenges them. It's as though they would revolt and secede from the country if the rest of us dared to challenge their "right" to host the two first elections.
Meanwhile huge states like California, Texas, and Illinois are nearly irrelevant in the primary process. This is despite the fact that their populations are not only much larger but also much more diverse. It is random and illogical to have two relatively random and small states like NH and Iowa play such a huge role in the primary process. SC, which normally chooses third, has chosen the Republican winner every single time. How is it fair, or logical, or proper to have this relatively small state be such a power player in the primary process?
My state, Illinois, will finally have some say in the selection process since it was moved up to Super Tuesday. There has never been an election in the primaries where the candidates paid any attention to Illinois. By the time Iowa votes, most of the candidates will have traveled to nearly each of their counties. I doubt any county but the most important, Cook, ever sees any candidate in Illinois.
There is absolutely no reason for this and I can't figure out why we all continue to do it. This is puzzling much like the BCS. In both cases, we have a flawed system that everyone knows and agrees is flawed. In both, no one seems to want to do anything about it.
Let's look at some of the things that happened. Mike Huckabee won in Iowa on the strength of a huge Christian Conservative contingent. That is all well and good but Iowa is in no way representative of the rest of the country in terms of the representation of Christian Conservatives in the Republican party. John McCain won in NH. NH is a state with a heavy independent contingent. He appealed to independents, who number about as many as Reps and Dems, and went on to victory. In Michigan, Mitt Romney rode his native son status to victory.
On the Democratic side, we have had three major states vote and as of yet there has not been any significant numbers of African Americans able to vote. Worse than that, in Iowa only 200,000 people voted for both parties. Thus, 200,000 people played a vital role in an election for a country with a population of about 300,000,000.
Ethanol is an alternative fuel that has been explored for viability as an alternative to petroleum. Some believe it gets too much exploration. Studies have found that the best case scenario would have only about 15% of our automobiles being powered by ethanol. Well, John Stossel, among many, believes that ethanol gets too much attention because Iowa, a state with a plethora of corn, is the first state to vote in the primaries.
So, why do we do it this way again? What I can't understand is how two relatively unimportant states have held the rest of the country hostage and forced their will upon it. Why again is it that these two states are always the first two to vote? There is absolutely no logical rhyme or reason for having them ALWAYS go first, and I have pointed out one piece of evidence of how this dynamic twists our politics.
By having Iowa and NH go first every single time, what we do is create winners out of candidates best suited to field those states. These two relatively small states have unique demographic makeup. You saw how well Huckabee took advantage of it in Iowa, and how effective it was for McCain. You see how it has caused Rudy to stay down low until Florida and caused him to ride an extremely risky strategy. Furthermore, Barack Obama has not been able to compete in a state where African Americans make up a large contingent yet. Had Hillary won both Iowa and NH, this race would have been virtually over before any significant numbers of African Americans had voted.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why the rest of the nation cedes so much power to these two states. Michigan moved its primary up and the DNC cancelled their delegates and the state was moot for them. Yet, Iowa and NH insist that they go first every single time, and no one challenges them. It's as though they would revolt and secede from the country if the rest of us dared to challenge their "right" to host the two first elections.
Meanwhile huge states like California, Texas, and Illinois are nearly irrelevant in the primary process. This is despite the fact that their populations are not only much larger but also much more diverse. It is random and illogical to have two relatively random and small states like NH and Iowa play such a huge role in the primary process. SC, which normally chooses third, has chosen the Republican winner every single time. How is it fair, or logical, or proper to have this relatively small state be such a power player in the primary process?
My state, Illinois, will finally have some say in the selection process since it was moved up to Super Tuesday. There has never been an election in the primaries where the candidates paid any attention to Illinois. By the time Iowa votes, most of the candidates will have traveled to nearly each of their counties. I doubt any county but the most important, Cook, ever sees any candidate in Illinois.
There is absolutely no reason for this and I can't figure out why we all continue to do it. This is puzzling much like the BCS. In both cases, we have a flawed system that everyone knows and agrees is flawed. In both, no one seems to want to do anything about it.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Election Open Thread
It looks as though Hillary and Romney will win in Nevada. SC is wide open for the Reps. My guy, Rudy, is likely to be rooting for Fred Thompson and more realistically Mike Huckabee. If McCain wins, we will see if 2008 will ever have any momentum for anyone when the next primary hits Florida. There appears to be some bad weather in the Northern part of SC which may or may not affect the race. Stay tuned...
Rudy continues to live in Florida having as many as fifteen events weekly there. His Rope a Dope will either be proven genius or flawed after Florida.
On the Democrat's side, I don't think any of this matters much. I don't think there will be any clear leader heading into super Tuesday February 3rd, and so these early states are for show.
The race on both sides continues to be fluid.
Rudy continues to live in Florida having as many as fifteen events weekly there. His Rope a Dope will either be proven genius or flawed after Florida.
On the Democrat's side, I don't think any of this matters much. I don't think there will be any clear leader heading into super Tuesday February 3rd, and so these early states are for show.
The race on both sides continues to be fluid.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Are FisCons the Key?
A couple nights back Dick Morris had an interesting analysis of the Republican race that I had few problems with. He said that because there is no one candidate that lives up to everything the Republican base is looking for, they are split into three camps. He believes there is the social conservative camp that is backing Huckabee. He thinks there is the GWOT hawks that are supporting either McCain or Rudy. Finally, there are the Fiscal Conservatives that are supporting Romney.
Now, I agree that there is no candidate that the base can settle on. Each of them has problems with the base in one manner or another. I agree that the Republican party is made up of these three factions however I disagree that the factions have chosen candidates quite so neatly. I don't think any of the camps are quite so monolithic or frankly simple.
Along with Iraq, what everyone will tell you is that the Republicans lost in 2006 because they lost their sense of fiscal discipline. The base finally got fed up with bloated prescription drug benefits, education programs, and a plethora of endless pork barrel projects (bridge to nowhere anyone). The fiscons were taken for granted and they lashed back. The party got crushed as a result.
I am still not so sure the Congressional Republicans have learned their lessons, however one thing is clear, the Presidential candidates have. As this race is unfolding, what is becoming obvious is that the one faction that no one is overlooking is the fiscons. Rudy is a social liberal who will have to win despite the Social Conservatives not because of them. Ron Paul is running as the dovish candidate and Romney and Huckabee have little if any foreign policy experience. McCain has ticked off all sorts of factions within the party.
What I have noticed is that along with stronger border enforcement, fiscal conservatism is a staple of each campaign. McCain has been out front as a champion of fiscal restraint. Here is the line he has used in multiple debates.
Huckabee, Romney, Rudy, and Fred Thompson have each emphasized their records as not only tax cutters but as champions of fiscal restraint. Ron Paul has long been emphasizing shrinking government and taxes. We have an eclectic group of candidates: the former pastor running as populist conservative, the maverick war hero, the accomplished mayor, the business tycoon... Each of them has appealed to certain factions and also written off others. Except for one faction that is, the fiscal conservatives. It appears clear the one faction each of them will appeal to is the fiscal conservatives. Each candidate is highlighting their own record as a tax cutter and model of fiscal restraint while many times subsequently attacking their opponents record as less than acceptable fiscally.
That was the subject of Fred Thompson's attack on Mike Huckabee. He referred to his policies as big government, the fiscon death knell. Romney's record has been attacked and Rudy's record has been questioned. Most of the other candidates have attacked McCain's vote against the Bush tax cuts, the holy grail for most fiscons.
The one thing we know about the Republican Presidential race so far is that we know very little. It continues to be up for grabs. If we know anything though is that it appears that the candidates see the fiscal conservatives as key. Two years too late for most people but better late than never.
Now, I agree that there is no candidate that the base can settle on. Each of them has problems with the base in one manner or another. I agree that the Republican party is made up of these three factions however I disagree that the factions have chosen candidates quite so neatly. I don't think any of the camps are quite so monolithic or frankly simple.
Along with Iraq, what everyone will tell you is that the Republicans lost in 2006 because they lost their sense of fiscal discipline. The base finally got fed up with bloated prescription drug benefits, education programs, and a plethora of endless pork barrel projects (bridge to nowhere anyone). The fiscons were taken for granted and they lashed back. The party got crushed as a result.
I am still not so sure the Congressional Republicans have learned their lessons, however one thing is clear, the Presidential candidates have. As this race is unfolding, what is becoming obvious is that the one faction that no one is overlooking is the fiscons. Rudy is a social liberal who will have to win despite the Social Conservatives not because of them. Ron Paul is running as the dovish candidate and Romney and Huckabee have little if any foreign policy experience. McCain has ticked off all sorts of factions within the party.
What I have noticed is that along with stronger border enforcement, fiscal conservatism is a staple of each campaign. McCain has been out front as a champion of fiscal restraint. Here is the line he has used in multiple debates.
I guarantee you I’ll veto those bills. I’ll ask for the line item veto and I’ll veto them and I’ll make the authors of them famous.
Huckabee, Romney, Rudy, and Fred Thompson have each emphasized their records as not only tax cutters but as champions of fiscal restraint. Ron Paul has long been emphasizing shrinking government and taxes. We have an eclectic group of candidates: the former pastor running as populist conservative, the maverick war hero, the accomplished mayor, the business tycoon... Each of them has appealed to certain factions and also written off others. Except for one faction that is, the fiscal conservatives. It appears clear the one faction each of them will appeal to is the fiscal conservatives. Each candidate is highlighting their own record as a tax cutter and model of fiscal restraint while many times subsequently attacking their opponents record as less than acceptable fiscally.
That was the subject of Fred Thompson's attack on Mike Huckabee. He referred to his policies as big government, the fiscon death knell. Romney's record has been attacked and Rudy's record has been questioned. Most of the other candidates have attacked McCain's vote against the Bush tax cuts, the holy grail for most fiscons.
The one thing we know about the Republican Presidential race so far is that we know very little. It continues to be up for grabs. If we know anything though is that it appears that the candidates see the fiscal conservatives as key. Two years too late for most people but better late than never.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Digesting the Michigan Primary
There were two main winners: Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. The two big losers were momentum and Hillary Clinton.
With the Michigan primary we now have three winners in three primaries on the Republican side. Mitt Romney took home this primary and rather decisively. The whole week was dedicated to the so called momentum of John McCain. He was suddenly leading in the national polls, Florida, and South Carolina. He was leading in just about every poll except for the only poll that mattered, the voting in Michigan. With Romney winning in Michigan, Rudy's rope a dope strategy looks more and more ingenius. It appears after analyzing the results of the first three states, that momentum is meaningless. Huckabee supposedly had momentum after Iowa and it lead to a fourth place 12% finish in NH. McCain supposedly had momentum after winning NH and it lead to a ten point loss in Michigan.
Now, it appears to be Romney's turn as the so called front runner. As Sean Hannity pointed out, this is two gold and two silvers in the first four states. (Wyoming voted however it wasn't taken too seriously for whatever reason) He now leads in the delegate count and he will supposedly enjoy the so called momentum into South Carolina.
The best analysis of Romney's victory went something like this. McCain made a statement that inferred that it was likely that many of Michigan's lost jobs will be lost forever. Romney pounced on it and countered with his own plan that called on all sorts of government spending to bring jobs back. The voters apparently liked Romney's plan better than McCain's straight talk.
If this is the case, it goes to show again that the dynamic in one state won't transfer to the next. Huckabee consolidated most of the Christian Conservatives, who were plentiful, in Iowa and rode them to victory. That couldn't be replicated in NH because the voting bloc is totally different. In Michigan, the state's own economic malaise, which apparently is large, was the main topic.
None of this means anything going into South Carolina. Fred Thompson is apparently riding on his last solid debate performance. Huckabee has already put a line in the sand and is staking out that state. McCain was leading however that was before the Michigan primary. I don't know how Romney's message will resonate.
Rudy is lying low watching this go on, while he practices good old fashioned retail politics in Florida. He continues to have dozens of campaign events per week. His organization is strongest, and I saw several of his commercials from my home Chicago during the Michigan primary coverage. It appears more and more as though the other candidates will battle it out for meaningless delegates while no one gets any momentum and Rudy will be waiting for everyone in Florida.
On the Democratic front, it is apparently a long and complicated story why Hillary nearly lost to none of the above. That said, the whole story, sad to say, doesn't matter. Because Michigan and the DNC couldn't come together, their delegates are not being counted in the convention. Everyone else, short of Kucinich, boycotted the primary entirely. Her victory would only have helped momentum and nearly being beaten by "uncommitted" won't help that. That said, this race will have most of its story written in Florida and super Tuesday. This result will likely have little effect either way.
With the Michigan primary we now have three winners in three primaries on the Republican side. Mitt Romney took home this primary and rather decisively. The whole week was dedicated to the so called momentum of John McCain. He was suddenly leading in the national polls, Florida, and South Carolina. He was leading in just about every poll except for the only poll that mattered, the voting in Michigan. With Romney winning in Michigan, Rudy's rope a dope strategy looks more and more ingenius. It appears after analyzing the results of the first three states, that momentum is meaningless. Huckabee supposedly had momentum after Iowa and it lead to a fourth place 12% finish in NH. McCain supposedly had momentum after winning NH and it lead to a ten point loss in Michigan.
Now, it appears to be Romney's turn as the so called front runner. As Sean Hannity pointed out, this is two gold and two silvers in the first four states. (Wyoming voted however it wasn't taken too seriously for whatever reason) He now leads in the delegate count and he will supposedly enjoy the so called momentum into South Carolina.
The best analysis of Romney's victory went something like this. McCain made a statement that inferred that it was likely that many of Michigan's lost jobs will be lost forever. Romney pounced on it and countered with his own plan that called on all sorts of government spending to bring jobs back. The voters apparently liked Romney's plan better than McCain's straight talk.
If this is the case, it goes to show again that the dynamic in one state won't transfer to the next. Huckabee consolidated most of the Christian Conservatives, who were plentiful, in Iowa and rode them to victory. That couldn't be replicated in NH because the voting bloc is totally different. In Michigan, the state's own economic malaise, which apparently is large, was the main topic.
None of this means anything going into South Carolina. Fred Thompson is apparently riding on his last solid debate performance. Huckabee has already put a line in the sand and is staking out that state. McCain was leading however that was before the Michigan primary. I don't know how Romney's message will resonate.
Rudy is lying low watching this go on, while he practices good old fashioned retail politics in Florida. He continues to have dozens of campaign events per week. His organization is strongest, and I saw several of his commercials from my home Chicago during the Michigan primary coverage. It appears more and more as though the other candidates will battle it out for meaningless delegates while no one gets any momentum and Rudy will be waiting for everyone in Florida.
On the Democratic front, it is apparently a long and complicated story why Hillary nearly lost to none of the above. That said, the whole story, sad to say, doesn't matter. Because Michigan and the DNC couldn't come together, their delegates are not being counted in the convention. Everyone else, short of Kucinich, boycotted the primary entirely. Her victory would only have helped momentum and nearly being beaten by "uncommitted" won't help that. That said, this race will have most of its story written in Florida and super Tuesday. This result will likely have little effect either way.
Friday, January 11, 2008
The SC Debate Round UP: Attacking..Defending...Defining Yourself and Your Opponents
The dynamics in last night's debate made it by far the most interesting and lively to me at least of the crop of debates so far. I noticed an interesting dynamic throughout. The candidates were either attacking or defending: someone or something, in an effort to define themselves or their opponents.
I first noticed it when Thompson unloaded on Huckabee trying to paint him as a big government, blame America first politician. Huckabee defended his record pointing out his approval rating, record on education, etc. however the most interesting point was when he pointed out that he GOVERNED. This was a clear dig at Thompson who's only experience is a member of the Senate. Each of the candidates with governing experience tried to define the issue as such, either attacking another's lack of practical management experience or by defending their own. On the issue of experience, Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani all tried to define this issue as management versus legislative. This was one of several areas in which either attack or defenses were used to define oneself or their opponent.
The issues were essentially broken down into five parts: fiscal conservatism, GWOT, illegal immigration, social issues, and Ronald Reagan. Ron Paul played the perfect foil on all GWOT issues and the rest of the field took turns attacking his position in order to define for themselves the most attractive stance on the GWOT. The candidates took turns attacking parts of Paul's position in an attempt to present themselves as the most hawkish. Paul, for his part, obliged entirely and attacked our current policy as entirely too intrusive to the rest of the world.
Paul gave the rest of the field an opening when he attacked our relationship with Israel and Huckabee took the bait on that issue and vigorously defended our relationship with Israel. Israel, and our close relationship with her, is one of those base issues that is important for every Republican candidate to get behind in order to get the nomination. In every aspect, the field minus Paul defended an aggressive and muscular foreign policy, while Paul countered by defending his own non interventionist policy and attacking aspects of the current policy. It was like having a more intelligent version of the Democrat's policy there on stage as a foil. I thought it worked fabulously. Paul himself worked perfectly as a foil. On foreign policy, we could count on him to present a version of the Dem's foreign policy to be attacked by the rest of the field. On other issues, he became an x factor and you weren't sure what he would say.
For me, John McCain is emerging as the candidate that is by far the most credible in this issue. Between his long, distinguished, and heroic record on military matters, and his firm Iraq position, both calling out the Rumsfeld strategy and initially backing the surge, he is strongest on this issue. Rudy tried a foolish attack trying to tie himself in with the troop surge. While Rudy may in fact have supported the surge from its dawn, he hasn't lead the way McCain has.
On the economy, they each tried to define themselves as the most fiscally conservative. McCain touted his own record as not only a tax cutter but a spending cutter. He tried to define the issue by once again referring to it as Washington changing Republicans on spending. The field interchanged between attacking the Dems big government policies, each other's record, and defending their own in what was clearly a race to see who will be viewed as the most fiscally conservative. The fiscal conservatives are a huge base and they are looking for someone that will provide credibility for Republicans on this issue.
Thompson attacked Giuliani for essentially what he characterized as stealing his own tax plan. While this likely worked and was met with applause, it should be noted that Thompson's plan is the FLAT tax, and Giuliani's tax is by no means flat. Thompson also went after Huckabee for what he deemed as liberal economic policies while he governed Arkansas. On this issue their attacks and defenses were targeted to paint themselves as most fiscally conservative and paint economic liberalism upon their opponents.
On illegal immigration, each also tried to identify themselves as the one most fit to seal the border. There was little debate that sealing the borders was paramount. The debate came down to who had the best plan and who was most fit to lead on this issue. Thompson saw another opportunity to attack Huckabee on his record. Romney attacked McCain's plan as amnesty. That is clearly a concept that each will look to use to define their opponents and avoid as a label for themselves. Rudy defended his own record. I felt he did a good job of pointing that the label that NYC was a sanctuary city during his tenure was without proper context. He pointed out that he had a policy that allowed illegals to report crime and send their kids to school without fear of being deported. As mayor, this seemed like the only sensible thing to do given the federal government was only actually deporting a very small percentage of illegals anyway. He defined the issue as a border fence, physical and technological, and tamper proof ID cards.
The social issues were nearly totally ignored, however Huckabee defended the institute of marriage and yet another example of his enormous credibility on that issue.
The most interesting part of the debate was everyone looking to define themselves along with Reagan. Here was another opportunity for Thompson to attack Huckabee. Huckabee defended his record and identified with Reagan by pointing out that Reagan raised taxes by one billion dollars, ten billion in today's dollars, his first year as Governor. McCain tried to identify with Reagan by pointing out that during the Reagan revolution they cut spending along with taxes. He attempted to define the Reagan issue as his brand of fiscal conservatism that focuses on tight spending. Rudy tried to define the Reagan issue as peace through strength, and vowed to "stay on offense". He also identified the Reagan issue as a broad coalition of folks where the party could be competitive in states like Cali, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. Thompson tried to define the Reagan issue by his consistent conservative record. By defending his own record, calling it the only consistent conservative record, he tried to define the Reagan issue that way.
All in all, it was a fascinating debate with each candidate either attacking or defending concepts, ideas, and other candidates, in a race to either define themselves or define their opponent.
I first noticed it when Thompson unloaded on Huckabee trying to paint him as a big government, blame America first politician. Huckabee defended his record pointing out his approval rating, record on education, etc. however the most interesting point was when he pointed out that he GOVERNED. This was a clear dig at Thompson who's only experience is a member of the Senate. Each of the candidates with governing experience tried to define the issue as such, either attacking another's lack of practical management experience or by defending their own. On the issue of experience, Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani all tried to define this issue as management versus legislative. This was one of several areas in which either attack or defenses were used to define oneself or their opponent.
The issues were essentially broken down into five parts: fiscal conservatism, GWOT, illegal immigration, social issues, and Ronald Reagan. Ron Paul played the perfect foil on all GWOT issues and the rest of the field took turns attacking his position in order to define for themselves the most attractive stance on the GWOT. The candidates took turns attacking parts of Paul's position in an attempt to present themselves as the most hawkish. Paul, for his part, obliged entirely and attacked our current policy as entirely too intrusive to the rest of the world.
Paul gave the rest of the field an opening when he attacked our relationship with Israel and Huckabee took the bait on that issue and vigorously defended our relationship with Israel. Israel, and our close relationship with her, is one of those base issues that is important for every Republican candidate to get behind in order to get the nomination. In every aspect, the field minus Paul defended an aggressive and muscular foreign policy, while Paul countered by defending his own non interventionist policy and attacking aspects of the current policy. It was like having a more intelligent version of the Democrat's policy there on stage as a foil. I thought it worked fabulously. Paul himself worked perfectly as a foil. On foreign policy, we could count on him to present a version of the Dem's foreign policy to be attacked by the rest of the field. On other issues, he became an x factor and you weren't sure what he would say.
For me, John McCain is emerging as the candidate that is by far the most credible in this issue. Between his long, distinguished, and heroic record on military matters, and his firm Iraq position, both calling out the Rumsfeld strategy and initially backing the surge, he is strongest on this issue. Rudy tried a foolish attack trying to tie himself in with the troop surge. While Rudy may in fact have supported the surge from its dawn, he hasn't lead the way McCain has.
On the economy, they each tried to define themselves as the most fiscally conservative. McCain touted his own record as not only a tax cutter but a spending cutter. He tried to define the issue by once again referring to it as Washington changing Republicans on spending. The field interchanged between attacking the Dems big government policies, each other's record, and defending their own in what was clearly a race to see who will be viewed as the most fiscally conservative. The fiscal conservatives are a huge base and they are looking for someone that will provide credibility for Republicans on this issue.
Thompson attacked Giuliani for essentially what he characterized as stealing his own tax plan. While this likely worked and was met with applause, it should be noted that Thompson's plan is the FLAT tax, and Giuliani's tax is by no means flat. Thompson also went after Huckabee for what he deemed as liberal economic policies while he governed Arkansas. On this issue their attacks and defenses were targeted to paint themselves as most fiscally conservative and paint economic liberalism upon their opponents.
On illegal immigration, each also tried to identify themselves as the one most fit to seal the border. There was little debate that sealing the borders was paramount. The debate came down to who had the best plan and who was most fit to lead on this issue. Thompson saw another opportunity to attack Huckabee on his record. Romney attacked McCain's plan as amnesty. That is clearly a concept that each will look to use to define their opponents and avoid as a label for themselves. Rudy defended his own record. I felt he did a good job of pointing that the label that NYC was a sanctuary city during his tenure was without proper context. He pointed out that he had a policy that allowed illegals to report crime and send their kids to school without fear of being deported. As mayor, this seemed like the only sensible thing to do given the federal government was only actually deporting a very small percentage of illegals anyway. He defined the issue as a border fence, physical and technological, and tamper proof ID cards.
The social issues were nearly totally ignored, however Huckabee defended the institute of marriage and yet another example of his enormous credibility on that issue.
The most interesting part of the debate was everyone looking to define themselves along with Reagan. Here was another opportunity for Thompson to attack Huckabee. Huckabee defended his record and identified with Reagan by pointing out that Reagan raised taxes by one billion dollars, ten billion in today's dollars, his first year as Governor. McCain tried to identify with Reagan by pointing out that during the Reagan revolution they cut spending along with taxes. He attempted to define the Reagan issue as his brand of fiscal conservatism that focuses on tight spending. Rudy tried to define the Reagan issue as peace through strength, and vowed to "stay on offense". He also identified the Reagan issue as a broad coalition of folks where the party could be competitive in states like Cali, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. Thompson tried to define the Reagan issue by his consistent conservative record. By defending his own record, calling it the only consistent conservative record, he tried to define the Reagan issue that way.
All in all, it was a fascinating debate with each candidate either attacking or defending concepts, ideas, and other candidates, in a race to either define themselves or define their opponent.
Rudy's Rope a Dope?
Is Rudy playing a rope a dope with his fifty state strategy? That is the perverbial 64 thousand dollar question. I have actually been known to add a dig or two to the strategy from time to time. Have I been to harsh and does Rudy know exactly what he is doing?
The genius of the plan is that if it works, it will work from the effective use of old school, textbook politics: retail politics. While the rest of the field is criss crossing South Carolina and Michigan, Rudy is about to embark on a bus tour of Florida...
And then the bus tour starts Sunday through Tuesday across the state.
Rudy has chosen to put all his resources in Florida and the states that follow on Super Tuesday. That's why I was treated to a commercial from Rudy Giuliani during the Republican debate from my place in Chicago. I have already attended a Rudy event and their office in Illinois (downtown Chicago) is full staffed with phone banks twice a week. While I haven't studied the campaigns of his opponents, I have to believe that in states like Florida, Illinois, California, New Jersey his organization is heads and shoulders more superior. He is relying on good old fashioned retail politics trumping the hype of the supposed momentum that others will get from winning the earlier and smaller states.
It will also come down to good old fashioned math. The sort of resources that Romney poured into Iowa and McCain poured into NH, Rudy is pouring into Florida. Florida's delegate count along with that of the other states (Illinois, California, New York, Washington, etc) Rudy is putting the majority of his resources into states with most of the delegates.
Rudy is also riding demographics. Huckabee won Iowa mostly appealing to the unusually large Christian Conservative base in that state. That is not the sort of constituency that Rudy will do well appealing to. NH is more moderate and there was fertile ground to Rudy, however McCain made a stand there appealing to many of the same type of folks. South Carolina and Michigan are also states where Rudy wouldn't be appealing to a good constituency. Florida is just right for Rudy. There is lots of wealth. They are more moderate. His social positions are a lot less of a drag in Florida than in say Iowa or South Carolina.
The other thing Rudy will need is luck. He can't have any one individual winning too many of the states, and so far things have fallen down quite nicely in front of him. Huckabee won Iowa but then finished fourth in NH. We will see how he will do however his momentum is questionable. McCain won NH and currently has momentum, but that would all be reversed if Romney wins there. Thompson has made South Carolina his final stand. This will open up very nicely for Rudy if Romney wins Michigan and Thompson wins South Carolina, however it is likely that McCain can ride his momentum into victories in both states.
By focusing on Florida, he becomes the only game in town so to speak. It is grass roots politics at its finest. He has about a dozen of events in Florida in just the next week...townhall meetings, speeches, barbecues...if there are Florida Republicans gathering Rudy will likely be there. The pundits were constantly pointing out that folks in NH and Iowa liked the politicians to meet them face to face. That is what Rudy is doing in Florida. Why should that state be any different? Only in Florida he is the only one doing it.
If he wins Florida, he will immediately take over the delegate lead. Furthermore, he will move into Super Tuesday and battle in states in which his organization is far superior to any other candidate. Taking the blows of losing states like Iowa, NH, South Carolina may seem like some sort of a failed strategy, but it may just be Rudy's rope a dope.
The genius of the plan is that if it works, it will work from the effective use of old school, textbook politics: retail politics. While the rest of the field is criss crossing South Carolina and Michigan, Rudy is about to embark on a bus tour of Florida...
That's the question after a two-day bus tour morphed late Thursday into a five-day swing through the state, further buttressing Giuliani's bet on winning Florida to make a serious stab at the GOP nomination. He arrives Friday in Coral Springs, and then on Saturday, hits Bradenton for a town hall meeting and speaks in Port Charlotte, both on Saturday.
And then the bus tour starts Sunday through Tuesday across the state.
Rudy has chosen to put all his resources in Florida and the states that follow on Super Tuesday. That's why I was treated to a commercial from Rudy Giuliani during the Republican debate from my place in Chicago. I have already attended a Rudy event and their office in Illinois (downtown Chicago) is full staffed with phone banks twice a week. While I haven't studied the campaigns of his opponents, I have to believe that in states like Florida, Illinois, California, New Jersey his organization is heads and shoulders more superior. He is relying on good old fashioned retail politics trumping the hype of the supposed momentum that others will get from winning the earlier and smaller states.
It will also come down to good old fashioned math. The sort of resources that Romney poured into Iowa and McCain poured into NH, Rudy is pouring into Florida. Florida's delegate count along with that of the other states (Illinois, California, New York, Washington, etc) Rudy is putting the majority of his resources into states with most of the delegates.
Rudy is also riding demographics. Huckabee won Iowa mostly appealing to the unusually large Christian Conservative base in that state. That is not the sort of constituency that Rudy will do well appealing to. NH is more moderate and there was fertile ground to Rudy, however McCain made a stand there appealing to many of the same type of folks. South Carolina and Michigan are also states where Rudy wouldn't be appealing to a good constituency. Florida is just right for Rudy. There is lots of wealth. They are more moderate. His social positions are a lot less of a drag in Florida than in say Iowa or South Carolina.
The other thing Rudy will need is luck. He can't have any one individual winning too many of the states, and so far things have fallen down quite nicely in front of him. Huckabee won Iowa but then finished fourth in NH. We will see how he will do however his momentum is questionable. McCain won NH and currently has momentum, but that would all be reversed if Romney wins there. Thompson has made South Carolina his final stand. This will open up very nicely for Rudy if Romney wins Michigan and Thompson wins South Carolina, however it is likely that McCain can ride his momentum into victories in both states.
By focusing on Florida, he becomes the only game in town so to speak. It is grass roots politics at its finest. He has about a dozen of events in Florida in just the next week...townhall meetings, speeches, barbecues...if there are Florida Republicans gathering Rudy will likely be there. The pundits were constantly pointing out that folks in NH and Iowa liked the politicians to meet them face to face. That is what Rudy is doing in Florida. Why should that state be any different? Only in Florida he is the only one doing it.
If he wins Florida, he will immediately take over the delegate lead. Furthermore, he will move into Super Tuesday and battle in states in which his organization is far superior to any other candidate. Taking the blows of losing states like Iowa, NH, South Carolina may seem like some sort of a failed strategy, but it may just be Rudy's rope a dope.
Deciphering and Decoding Hillary's Stimulus Plan
I believe that Hillary is looking to awaken the ghosts of FDR with her sweeping economic stimulus package. The plan is heavy on bailouts, rule changes, and expansion of several already bloated government programs. Clinton gives tax cuts a token look promising to look at a 40 billion dollar direct tax cut only if the recession continues to worse.
Clinton plans on not only giving a 30 billion dollar bailout to struggling mortgage holders but also ten billion dollars to expand unemployment insurance, and $25 billion for heating assistance.
She wants to put a moratorium on foreclosures. If all of that still fails she wants to give a tax cut.
This is a poor man's version of FDR's first 100 days. There are layers and layers of things going on here. First, it is pretty obvious that something about her message on mortgages is polling well because it is becoming a bigger and bigger portion of her domestic policy. If that is so, I would love to see the polling her plan receives among general election voters. I just cannot believe that the majority of the country would buy the garbage she is spewing.
Her purported mortgage bailout is nothing more than a plan to delay the inevitable. The idea that holding off the banks for ninety days will do anything is the sort of thing someone naive and with no understanding of the dynamics of the crisis would suggest. If someone is about to be foreclosed they have missed payments for six months and more. Moratorium or not, their situation is dire. She can hold off the bank for ninety days but that won't change the dynamic that got them there. ( Here is my previous review of her mortgage bailout.)
The stimulus through government spending not only takes Clinton to her socialist roots but I believe it is also some sort of homage to FDR. In any case, I think it should be clear to the voters how each party party would approach the economic crisis.
This sort of big government populism should be a staple in every democrat's economic stimulus package. The Republicans will respond with tax cuts like what Rudy proposed. McCain has tied all of this to spending cuts while Thompson and Huckabee have used the debate to highlight their respective flat and fair tax proposals. We will see what the public likes...
Clinton plans on not only giving a 30 billion dollar bailout to struggling mortgage holders but also ten billion dollars to expand unemployment insurance, and $25 billion for heating assistance.
She wants to put a moratorium on foreclosures. If all of that still fails she wants to give a tax cut.
This is a poor man's version of FDR's first 100 days. There are layers and layers of things going on here. First, it is pretty obvious that something about her message on mortgages is polling well because it is becoming a bigger and bigger portion of her domestic policy. If that is so, I would love to see the polling her plan receives among general election voters. I just cannot believe that the majority of the country would buy the garbage she is spewing.
Her purported mortgage bailout is nothing more than a plan to delay the inevitable. The idea that holding off the banks for ninety days will do anything is the sort of thing someone naive and with no understanding of the dynamics of the crisis would suggest. If someone is about to be foreclosed they have missed payments for six months and more. Moratorium or not, their situation is dire. She can hold off the bank for ninety days but that won't change the dynamic that got them there. ( Here is my previous review of her mortgage bailout.)
The stimulus through government spending not only takes Clinton to her socialist roots but I believe it is also some sort of homage to FDR. In any case, I think it should be clear to the voters how each party party would approach the economic crisis.
This sort of big government populism should be a staple in every democrat's economic stimulus package. The Republicans will respond with tax cuts like what Rudy proposed. McCain has tied all of this to spending cuts while Thompson and Huckabee have used the debate to highlight their respective flat and fair tax proposals. We will see what the public likes...
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Deconstructing Barack Obama
This piece would have been a lot more timely yesterday at about four P.M. Central time when every person of note was predicting an Obama ten point victory and clear sailing to the nomination. Still, his campaign is formidable and should not be underestimated. He has three things that make any candidate formidable in any free election: charm, charisma and likeability. That said, I believe a combination of incompetence and little substantive difference has stopped Hillary from stripping Obama's message down and exposing it for the house of cards that it is. He is running on a very powerful message... a message of hope and unity. From my perspective that message is built on nothing. Obama doesn't say anything any other politician wouldn't say, he just says it in a charismatic way so that folks believe him. The problem for Hillary is that her policies aren't substantively any different than his. Thus, she can't attack his policies and thus his message gets out to the public.
The Republican candidate should have no such trouble, and so here is how I believe his opponent should deconstruct Obama and strip him of his hopeful message.
The first issue is illegal immigration. I pointed out earlier that in words and deeds Obama has a steadfast record of open borders policy that shows more compassion for law breakers than for the rule of law. In last summer's illegal immigration debate, he voted against two amendments of note: one to outlaw criminals and terrorists from entering the country and the other to commit to following the laws already on the books. When Obama was in the Illinois legislature, he was one of the legislators leading the charge to grant driver's licenses to illegals in the state. Driver's licenses for illegals was rejected by seventy percent of liberal New York staters. That gives you an idea of how it would play in the rest of the country.
Here is what Obama said to the open borders group La Raza...
And I will never walk away from the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live, work, and contribute to our country every single day.
He has absolutely no plan for securing the borders. He skipped a vote to outlaw sanctuary cities like his hometown, Chicago, and voted to allow children of illegals amnesty through the DREAM Act. These maybe positions that are favored by the Democratic base but are totally untennable in any general election. The Republican candidates all have tough border enforcement credentials, yes even John McCain, and they can and better attack his open borders policy.
His social policy can be summed up this way...he stands to the left of Planned Parenthood on abortion. He once voted for a bill that actually allows doctors to still abort a baby even after it is out of the womb. The bill was called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and here is how Amanda Carpenter described his actions on this bill...
But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”
Let's remember Obama is not merely pro abortion but he goes so far as to be pro partial birth abortion. The Supreme Court decision on partial birth abortion became an issue in the Democratic Primary this past spring. Here is how Obama reacted...
I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women,
Now, any veterans of my work know that I have a serious problem with emotional rather than logical arguements. That said, his support of partial birth abortion presents a great opportunity for any Republican (Rudy included who is against partial birth abortion) to run an advertisement appealing to emotion. Most people have no idea how brutal the act of partial birth abortion is. Any add that describes its brutality and links Obama to it can easily appeal to folk's emotions. 
Here is how the process is described.
The entire infant is delivered except the head. A scissors isjammed into the base of the skull. A tube is inserted into the skull, and the brain is sucked out. The now-dead infant is pulled out.
Now, that makes for a visual advertisement. The brutality and inhumanity of partial birth abortion is unspeakable and Obama is not only on record as supporting the process but condemning a Supreme Court decision as some sort of a slippery slope intrusion on reproductive rights. Clearly, Obama will look to appoint judges that see this practice as perfectly constitutional and that is something for his opponent to exploit. Again, while partial birth abortion may play in the Dem primary it won't in the general election.
On Iraq and the GWOT he also has issues to exploit. His position is on Iraq becomes less and less tennable each day. He will have to BS his way through the position. The surge continues to show more and more signs of progress and we are still eleven months from the election. Keep in mind that Obama favors a withdrawal of forces. That withdrawal would reverse every single gain the surge has produced and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. A vote for Obama means a victory in Iraq for Al Qaeda. It is as simple as that and the Rep opponent must hammer that home. On the GWOT in general, his position is convoluted and naive. He favors dialogue with sociopathic dictators like Ahmadinejad and Assad. He has even hinted at an opening of dialogue with Castro in Cuba. Obama foolishly believes that he can charm the despots and dictators of this world.
The key to countering his naive message and exposing it for what it is..is credibility. John McCain has the most credibility on the war in the Rep field. Most of the candidates have some credibility, however McCain would be in the best position to expose it. Keep in mind that Obama insinuates that his plan for dialogue is new. It isn't. The Clinton admin met many times with both Assad and Arafat. It didn't work, and dialogue with sociopaths never works. The only way dialogue would work is when those despots are in a clear position of weakness. Reagan first created an arms race the Soviets couldn't win and only after the Soviets knew it did he dialogue. Obama's dialogue is described by himself as unconditional and that position can be exposed for the naive and inexperienced that it is.
On the economy, attacking Obama is a lot more difficult. The economy will likely be in trouble and many of his domestic programs, like universal health care, poll well. That said, I would attack them two ways. The first is with my favorite Reagan quote
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Obama thinks our health care system is broken and he wants to help. He thinks our mortgage system is broken and he wants the government to help. He, like most traditional liberals, thinks the government must ultimately control the economy. I personally would merely like one of the Republicans to invoke the phrase in response to anyone of his numerous big government, ultimately more taxes, proposals, however the concept is there no matter how it is described.
Second, the Reps must make it known that this election comes down to those that believe the government knows best and th market knows best. I pointed out yesterday that embryonic stem cell research is one of many examples of liberals believing that the government is a better arbitor than the free market. Obama is like any other standard liberal who believes that on issue after issue: health care, global warming, mortgages, embryonic stem cell research, it is the job of the government to make decisions and not the free market. I disagree and I firmly believe that any candidate that wants to put all this control in the hands of the government is a candidate that will lose.
Finally, there is experience. The reason that this hasn't worked for Hillary isn't only because the Democratic electorate is looking for a message of hope and change, it is also because her so called experience is a fraud. The major Rep candidates have no such problem. Whether it is Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, all of these candidates have real, practical experience and a history of effectiveness and leadership. Obama has nothing. The biggest thing he has run is his Senate office. Obama has a standard response that involves saying that experience could be the wrong kind of experience. That is true with Hillary because she really had no experience. Rudy turned around a city deemed ungovernable, and lead them through crisis and turmoil. Is that the wrong kind of experience? Huckabee governed his state for ten plus years and left as one of the most popular and successful in his state. Is that the wrong kind of experience? Romney ran a successful business, olympics and then a state...is that the wrong kind? John McCain is a war hero, Senate leader and a main of unquestioned principle, toughness and moral being. Is that the wrong kind of experience? Barack Obama's inexperience only appears to be a non issue because he is matched up with folks who's experience is really no different than his. In the general election, that will no longer be the case.
The New Hampshire Review...or Rumors of Hillary's Demise Were Greatly Exaggerated
My favorite political pundit is Dick Morris. I recently wrote about his prophetic words in the aftermath of the 2006 election about the troubles the Dems would have controlling Congress. He turned out to be right and for all the reasons he mentioned. In the beginning of the year, he also said that the Democratic race would go back and forth in a bitter struggle and he predicted that Hillary would win in the end. While we certainly don't know a winner yet, his prophetic prediction of a back and forth struggle appears to be quite accurate.
A day and a half ago, the punditry was writing Hillary's obituary. She was all but written off and now she is the favorite once again. There are two ways to look at this race. The first is that the two first states were split and so there is no momentum. If there is no momentum, then Hillary is the favorite since she has a rather large lead in the national polls. The second way to look at it is that Obama nearly swept the first two states and we haven't even gotten to any states with any significant African American voting block. I won't make the mistake of other folks and even venture a prediction, however I will state the obvious: it is definitely one of those two.
On the Republican side, I must first admit that McCain's victory speech was so powerful I nearly switched my support, nearly I say. The only thing we know about the Republican race is that we know very little. The conventional wisdom now has McCain as the frontrunner though the same CW had Huckabee as the frontrunner after Iowa. I think Romney is through, however there is no doubt he is going to make one last stand in Michigan. He had the traditional strategy, win Iowa win NH, and he needed it. While he lead in both states for a long time, he was far down nationally. Without victories in either state, I don't see him getting the kind of momentum he would need to compete in important states like Florida, California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois.
Now, I referred to McCain as Rudy's proxy in NH. I believe that McCain needed to win NH in order to stop the momentum of Romney and Huckabee. He did that however there is a divergent school of thought. The other school of thought is that McCain's victory will push Rudy to the side because they occupy the similar tough, strong on the GWOT, moderate space. It is hard to know who is right, however Romney becomes Rudy's proxy in Michigan and Fred Thompson will become Rudy's proxy in South Carolina. If those two folks win each of those two states, then the race opens wide for Rudy to win Florida and ride super Tuesday to the nomination. Well, as a late friend of mine loved to say...
What I think the scenario I laid out shows is that Rudy's strategy is terribly flawed. He has a supposed fifty state strategy however it includes none of the early fifty states. There is something to be said for focusing on the huge delegate count of Florida and not overemphasizing Iowa and New Hampshire, however not only does this strategy have huge and obvious risks but he could have at least been competitive in each of these states while maintaining his overall strategy.
It is onto Michigan. The DNC has shunned the state for moving their primary up so it matters not to the Democrats but the results there will make the Rep race a bit, a bit I say, more clear
A day and a half ago, the punditry was writing Hillary's obituary. She was all but written off and now she is the favorite once again. There are two ways to look at this race. The first is that the two first states were split and so there is no momentum. If there is no momentum, then Hillary is the favorite since she has a rather large lead in the national polls. The second way to look at it is that Obama nearly swept the first two states and we haven't even gotten to any states with any significant African American voting block. I won't make the mistake of other folks and even venture a prediction, however I will state the obvious: it is definitely one of those two.
On the Republican side, I must first admit that McCain's victory speech was so powerful I nearly switched my support, nearly I say. The only thing we know about the Republican race is that we know very little. The conventional wisdom now has McCain as the frontrunner though the same CW had Huckabee as the frontrunner after Iowa. I think Romney is through, however there is no doubt he is going to make one last stand in Michigan. He had the traditional strategy, win Iowa win NH, and he needed it. While he lead in both states for a long time, he was far down nationally. Without victories in either state, I don't see him getting the kind of momentum he would need to compete in important states like Florida, California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois.
Now, I referred to McCain as Rudy's proxy in NH. I believe that McCain needed to win NH in order to stop the momentum of Romney and Huckabee. He did that however there is a divergent school of thought. The other school of thought is that McCain's victory will push Rudy to the side because they occupy the similar tough, strong on the GWOT, moderate space. It is hard to know who is right, however Romney becomes Rudy's proxy in Michigan and Fred Thompson will become Rudy's proxy in South Carolina. If those two folks win each of those two states, then the race opens wide for Rudy to win Florida and ride super Tuesday to the nomination. Well, as a late friend of mine loved to say...
if if was a fifth we'd all be drunk
What I think the scenario I laid out shows is that Rudy's strategy is terribly flawed. He has a supposed fifty state strategy however it includes none of the early fifty states. There is something to be said for focusing on the huge delegate count of Florida and not overemphasizing Iowa and New Hampshire, however not only does this strategy have huge and obvious risks but he could have at least been competitive in each of these states while maintaining his overall strategy.
It is onto Michigan. The DNC has shunned the state for moving their primary up so it matters not to the Democrats but the results there will make the Rep race a bit, a bit I say, more clear
Monday, January 7, 2008
Hillary's Theme Problem
You really gotta love politics. A couple months back the whole entire punditry was wondering just exactly how inevitable Hillary's candidacy really was. Now, Drudge is reporting that Hillary's campaign maybe through. Four years ago, Barack Obama was struggling to get the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate (I believe it was Blair Hull that was leading for a while before scandalous information was revealed about his divorce, and ironically Jack Ryan's campaign in the general election against Obama suffered a similar fate), and now he is on the verge of the Democratic nomination for President.
Now, I certainly don't believe the reports from Drudge. I don't think that even if Hillary loses in New Hampshire she is through, and I certainly believe that she will only go down with a political scorched earth strategy. Thus, this nomination is anything but wrapped up by anyone, however while the numbers in New Hampshire should concern Hillary there should be something much more concerning. Why is she running for President?
If you look at any of the major candidates, they all have themes to their candidacy. For a while, the theme the media helped construct was inevitability. The problem is that being the inevitabl candidate is not a reason to vote for someone. Obama has the politics of hope. He is hoping to ride a positive, uplifting and inclusive message to the White House.
John Edwards has his two Americas. He is looking to ride a populist message to the White House. Rudy Giuliani wants to ride effectiveness and leadership to the White House. Huckabee has a similar positive and uplifting message to Obama's. Fred Thompson is trying to be the only true conservative in the race. Mitt Romney is trying to ride a similar experience and effectiveness theme to the White House. John McCain is running as the principled, courageous leader who was not only was out front on criticizing the failed Rumsfeld strategy, but was the only one standing up and supporting the new policy that now has many backers.
What is Hillary's theme? She tried to ride a theme of experience, however I believe that didn't work well because she isn't all that experienced. Most of her experience comes as the wife of another individual that was governing. She has little to show for her own experience. She tried to ride a theme of being the toughest in the campaign, however this was no less silly since her husband went on the attack everytime she was challenged.
She has most recently tried to be the agent of change, however her opponents have quickly and accurately painted her as all too much part of the establishment. She isn't calling for the immediate withdrawal of forces from Iraq, and she isn't saying she wants to win in Iraq. Her foreign policy amounts to bashing the current policy. That isn't going to do much since every Democrat's foreign policy will center around bashing the current one. Her domestic policy is standard liberal and its differences between that of her rivals amounts to trivial nuance that most voters don't understand or get.
She tried a charm offensive only the main problem is she has no charm. I believe the real problem is that Hillary doesn't know why she is running for President besides her own lust for power. She has some standard liberal things that she wants to accomplish, however they are substantively no different than any of her primary opponents. Besides that, she doesn't have a theme like her opponents. Someone needs to know why they are supporting a candidate. I look at Rudy and see an accomplished and effective leader and that is the reason I support him. A Fred Thompson supporter sees the only true conservative in the race. Even Ron Paul supporters see someone that is beholden to the Constitution. Obama supporters see a fresh face that brings hope back to politics. All those themes I get, I don't see a theme there for Hillary.
Now, I certainly don't believe the reports from Drudge. I don't think that even if Hillary loses in New Hampshire she is through, and I certainly believe that she will only go down with a political scorched earth strategy. Thus, this nomination is anything but wrapped up by anyone, however while the numbers in New Hampshire should concern Hillary there should be something much more concerning. Why is she running for President?
If you look at any of the major candidates, they all have themes to their candidacy. For a while, the theme the media helped construct was inevitability. The problem is that being the inevitabl candidate is not a reason to vote for someone. Obama has the politics of hope. He is hoping to ride a positive, uplifting and inclusive message to the White House.
John Edwards has his two Americas. He is looking to ride a populist message to the White House. Rudy Giuliani wants to ride effectiveness and leadership to the White House. Huckabee has a similar positive and uplifting message to Obama's. Fred Thompson is trying to be the only true conservative in the race. Mitt Romney is trying to ride a similar experience and effectiveness theme to the White House. John McCain is running as the principled, courageous leader who was not only was out front on criticizing the failed Rumsfeld strategy, but was the only one standing up and supporting the new policy that now has many backers.
What is Hillary's theme? She tried to ride a theme of experience, however I believe that didn't work well because she isn't all that experienced. Most of her experience comes as the wife of another individual that was governing. She has little to show for her own experience. She tried to ride a theme of being the toughest in the campaign, however this was no less silly since her husband went on the attack everytime she was challenged.
She has most recently tried to be the agent of change, however her opponents have quickly and accurately painted her as all too much part of the establishment. She isn't calling for the immediate withdrawal of forces from Iraq, and she isn't saying she wants to win in Iraq. Her foreign policy amounts to bashing the current policy. That isn't going to do much since every Democrat's foreign policy will center around bashing the current one. Her domestic policy is standard liberal and its differences between that of her rivals amounts to trivial nuance that most voters don't understand or get.
She tried a charm offensive only the main problem is she has no charm. I believe the real problem is that Hillary doesn't know why she is running for President besides her own lust for power. She has some standard liberal things that she wants to accomplish, however they are substantively no different than any of her primary opponents. Besides that, she doesn't have a theme like her opponents. Someone needs to know why they are supporting a candidate. I look at Rudy and see an accomplished and effective leader and that is the reason I support him. A Fred Thompson supporter sees the only true conservative in the race. Even Ron Paul supporters see someone that is beholden to the Constitution. Obama supporters see a fresh face that brings hope back to politics. All those themes I get, I don't see a theme there for Hillary.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Quick Post Iowa Thoughts
Here is the latest GOP Presidential Futures data. The futures market saw the big winner as John McCain. He is now the favorite in the market. McCain continues to be all in in NH. He must win and that is still no easy task given that Romney is essentially a favorite son. Keep in mind that a third of folks in New Hampshire watch Massachusetts television. Despite coming in a very distant sixth, Rudy also had a good night last night. His proxy, Mike Huckabee, took the victory and foiled Romney's momentum strategy. I continue to believe that Romney was the biggest threat to Rudy because only Romney had the resources to challenge Rudy nationwide. Huckabee might get the sort of funding he needs as a result of this victory however that is not likely. He is unlikely to finish better than third in NH and so some momentum will be stalled.
Even with victory in NH, McCain faces a similar national problem to Huckabee: organization and cash. Rudy is of course likely rooting for McCain in NH, and would pull off the trifecta if say Fred Thompson won in South Carolina. This is Rudy's dream scenario and it would turn his campaign into an oracle even if it was likely by accident as i suspect.
Fred Thompson finished third in Iowa, tied with McCain. The blogosphere was jubilant. They treated it as a victory and continued to throw venom on a report by the Politico that he would drop out. I am of the opinion that most of the right blogosphere is totally out of their minds and cheer leading rather than analyzing. Thompson is likely to not finish better than third anywhere and is fourth nationally. If there is a winning strategy there, I am missing it.
Ron Paul got double digits which will no doubt send his supporters screaming revolution all over the internet.
The situation remains fluid and the nomination is still up in the air. I believe Romney is through whether he wins NH or not. McCain must win NH or he is through, though a victory could give him the sort of momentum necessary to make a national run. Huckabee needs to ride this momentum into cash or organization or soon enough folks will realize that Iowa doesn't have many delegates. He will likely not do as well in more moderate and independent NH, but will be on more friendly turf in South Carolina. Rudy must simply sit back and hope no one gains any momentum and hope his lead in Florida maintains till the 29th. If he wins Florida, he will win the nomination because that is a victory with real momentume, however as a friend of mine liked to say,
The Democratic race is now a serious two horse race. Hillary maintains a national lead, with money and organization. Still, her performance in Iowa must bear the question: what is the purpose of her campaign. Obama is running on the politics of hope and he has charm, charisma and likeability. I, myself, don't buy the act at all however I am his political opponent. At least, I get the point of his campaign. Edwards has his two America's shtick. I don't buy it either but at least he has a shtick. What is the purpose of Hillary's campaign? I think the folks in Iowa were asking that question.
While Edwards beat Hillary, he was all in in Iowa. He has little presence outside Iowa and less cash, and worse than that Hillary and Obama are drowning in cash. His campaign continues but it is in the beginning of a slow and painful death.
Obama could take control of this race with a victory in NH. He would ride that momentum to a likely victory in South Carolina and winning each of the first three states would make him difficult to beat regardless of his position nationally.
Hillary is not through by a long shot, however I see her campaign as weak. While a loss in Iowa is not the end, I don't see how she will re gain momentum. She tried a charm offensive except she isn't charming. She has equivocated on Iraq and driver's licenses for illegals. She frankly has equivocated on everything. She touts experience even though it seems even the Dems get that it isn't really her experience. She has no messag, purpose, or theme to her campaign. That is a problem.
Even with victory in NH, McCain faces a similar national problem to Huckabee: organization and cash. Rudy is of course likely rooting for McCain in NH, and would pull off the trifecta if say Fred Thompson won in South Carolina. This is Rudy's dream scenario and it would turn his campaign into an oracle even if it was likely by accident as i suspect.
Fred Thompson finished third in Iowa, tied with McCain. The blogosphere was jubilant. They treated it as a victory and continued to throw venom on a report by the Politico that he would drop out. I am of the opinion that most of the right blogosphere is totally out of their minds and cheer leading rather than analyzing. Thompson is likely to not finish better than third anywhere and is fourth nationally. If there is a winning strategy there, I am missing it.
Ron Paul got double digits which will no doubt send his supporters screaming revolution all over the internet.
The situation remains fluid and the nomination is still up in the air. I believe Romney is through whether he wins NH or not. McCain must win NH or he is through, though a victory could give him the sort of momentum necessary to make a national run. Huckabee needs to ride this momentum into cash or organization or soon enough folks will realize that Iowa doesn't have many delegates. He will likely not do as well in more moderate and independent NH, but will be on more friendly turf in South Carolina. Rudy must simply sit back and hope no one gains any momentum and hope his lead in Florida maintains till the 29th. If he wins Florida, he will win the nomination because that is a victory with real momentume, however as a friend of mine liked to say,
if if was a fifth we'd all be drunk
The Democratic race is now a serious two horse race. Hillary maintains a national lead, with money and organization. Still, her performance in Iowa must bear the question: what is the purpose of her campaign. Obama is running on the politics of hope and he has charm, charisma and likeability. I, myself, don't buy the act at all however I am his political opponent. At least, I get the point of his campaign. Edwards has his two America's shtick. I don't buy it either but at least he has a shtick. What is the purpose of Hillary's campaign? I think the folks in Iowa were asking that question.
While Edwards beat Hillary, he was all in in Iowa. He has little presence outside Iowa and less cash, and worse than that Hillary and Obama are drowning in cash. His campaign continues but it is in the beginning of a slow and painful death.
Obama could take control of this race with a victory in NH. He would ride that momentum to a likely victory in South Carolina and winning each of the first three states would make him difficult to beat regardless of his position nationally.
Hillary is not through by a long shot, however I see her campaign as weak. While a loss in Iowa is not the end, I don't see how she will re gain momentum. She tried a charm offensive except she isn't charming. She has equivocated on Iraq and driver's licenses for illegals. She frankly has equivocated on everything. She touts experience even though it seems even the Dems get that it isn't really her experience. She has no messag, purpose, or theme to her campaign. That is a problem.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Huckabee, Gilchrist, and the Minutemen
UPDATE: Obviously, this didn't happen yesterday but a week and a half ago, however it continues to show the intensity of the campaign season.
Yesterday, Jim Gilchrist, founder and head of the Minutemen, endorsed Mike Huckabee for President.
This immediately raised the eyebrows of illegal immigration hawk, Michelle Malkin.
Just two years ago, Huckabee appeared before the open-borders Hispanic group,The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), preaching an open-doorpolicy. According to the ArkansasNews Bureau, Huckabee also criticized state legislation requiring proof ofcitizenship to register to vote and enhanced reporting of illegal aliens asun-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life — not to mention“inflammatory,” “race-baiting” and “demagoguery.”
...Bringing up the false convert rear is Sen. John McCain. Earlier this year, he was themost vocal critic of grass-roots conservatives who mobilized against the amnesty bill. He now says he has learned his lesson and supports securing the border. He has learned nothing. During the shamnesty debacle, he called Rush Limbaugh a “nativist;” over the weekend, he repeated such contemptuous “straight talk” at the Univision debate by assailing what he called anti-Hispanic rhetoric. In an interview with the New Yorker, he irritatedly dismissed immigration concerns in Iowa as marginal and irrational — just a bunch of “senior citizens” in Iowa caught up in the“emotion” of a cultural assault.
...Rudy “I supported sanctuary policies before I was against them, but my sanctuary policy wasn’t really a sanctuary policy, anyway” Giuliani now quotes “the advice of agreat man, Father Hesburgh, who said, ‘We must close the back door of illegal immigration in order to preserve the front door of legal immigration.’” In an interview with Washington Examiner reporter and author Bill Sammon, Giuliani now says he really, truly would have deported 400,000 illegal aliens in New York if he could have...
Rudy “I supported sanctuary policies before I was against them, but my sanctuary policy wasn’t really a sanctuary policy, anyway” Giuliani now quotes “the advice of agreat man, Father Hesburgh, who said, ‘We must close the back door of illegal immigration in order to preserve the front door of legal immigration.’” In an interview with Washington Examiner reporter and author Bill Sammon, Giuliani now says he really, truly would have deported 400,000 illegal aliens in New York if he could have...
Well, I knew the campaign season was in full swing when I received this on my email...
Now, I have long been of the opinion that this hyperanalyzing of people's records is useless and misleading. There is no way to govern for any extended period of time without having plenty to criticize on plenty of issues if your record is dissected enough. I am skeptical of Michelle's and others intense and harsh criticism of Huckabee's record, however I do believe everyone should see this email.
Yesterday, Jim Gilchrist, founder and head of the Minutemen, endorsed Mike Huckabee for President.
In Iowa today, former Arkansas Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee received a major endorsement from Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project. Huckabee said he was honored to receive the endorsement.“
No one can question Jim's commitment to this country and the immigration problem. He has mobilized a group of volunteers to go to the border and draw attention to the issue of immigration. All of us want a policy where people come to this country through the front door, not the back door,” said Huckabee during a morning news conference. Gilchrist added,"
Governor Huckabee actually wrote a plan that I can embrace. I found his ‘Secure America’ plan would open the dialogue and help begin the process of solving the illegal immigration problem.”
This immediately raised the eyebrows of illegal immigration hawk, Michelle Malkin.
Yeah, you read it right–the founder of the border control group, the Minuteman Project, is endorsing open-borders-turned-expedient enforcement convert GOP candidate Mike Huckabee:Michelle has recently become so critical of every politician's stance vis a vis illegal immigration that I frankly beginning to believe that it is now simply to the point of being unreasonable and unrealistic.
...Huckabee called the endorsement “providential.” I know many grass-roots immigration enforcement supporters will have far less kind words than that.
Just two years ago, Huckabee appeared before the open-borders Hispanic group,The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), preaching an open-doorpolicy. According to the ArkansasNews Bureau, Huckabee also criticized state legislation requiring proof ofcitizenship to register to vote and enhanced reporting of illegal aliens asun-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life — not to mention“inflammatory,” “race-baiting” and “demagoguery.”
...Bringing up the false convert rear is Sen. John McCain. Earlier this year, he was themost vocal critic of grass-roots conservatives who mobilized against the amnesty bill. He now says he has learned his lesson and supports securing the border. He has learned nothing. During the shamnesty debacle, he called Rush Limbaugh a “nativist;” over the weekend, he repeated such contemptuous “straight talk” at the Univision debate by assailing what he called anti-Hispanic rhetoric. In an interview with the New Yorker, he irritatedly dismissed immigration concerns in Iowa as marginal and irrational — just a bunch of “senior citizens” in Iowa caught up in the“emotion” of a cultural assault.
...Rudy “I supported sanctuary policies before I was against them, but my sanctuary policy wasn’t really a sanctuary policy, anyway” Giuliani now quotes “the advice of agreat man, Father Hesburgh, who said, ‘We must close the back door of illegal immigration in order to preserve the front door of legal immigration.’” In an interview with Washington Examiner reporter and author Bill Sammon, Giuliani now says he really, truly would have deported 400,000 illegal aliens in New York if he could have...
Rudy “I supported sanctuary policies before I was against them, but my sanctuary policy wasn’t really a sanctuary policy, anyway” Giuliani now quotes “the advice of agreat man, Father Hesburgh, who said, ‘We must close the back door of illegal immigration in order to preserve the front door of legal immigration.’” In an interview with Washington Examiner reporter and author Bill Sammon, Giuliani now says he really, truly would have deported 400,000 illegal aliens in New York if he could have...
Well, I knew the campaign season was in full swing when I received this on my email...
For the sake of clarity, it is important to note that the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC), the nation's largest Minuteman organization, is a 501(C)4 non-profit organization and cannot and does not endorse any candidate for public office. MCDC is not associated with Mr. Jim Gilchrist, who today endorsed Mike Huckabee for president.
Jim Gilchrist’s erstwhile Minuteman Project is itself an organization which by its own representations as a non-profit civic group cannot legally endorse candidates. It does not have any volunteers who observe illegal border activity. It has no border fence building projects. Jim Gilchrist here speaks only for Jim Gilchrist, he does not speak for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, nor is he nationally representative of most patriots in the "Minuteman movement" – who under no circumstances could ignore the failed record nor endorse the duplicitous “plan” recently rolled out by candidate Mike Huckabee. The national media needs to recognize that Jim Gilchrist’s endorsement is his own personal statement, nothing more.
The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps emphasizes policy dealing with national border security. The only "plan" to ensure border security that is acceptable to our constituency would be a candidate policy statement declaring that his first act as President will be to hold a press conference and announce to the American people an executive order to immediately deploy and fund 30,000 National Guard personnel to the U.S. Borders (25,000 to the southern border and 5,000 to the northern border) to complement a massive increase in U.S. Border Patrol Agent field personnel, and a bilateral effort to secure our frontiers, smash the drug cartels, shut down the human smugglers and protect the public safety of the citizens who residealong the borders on both sides of our national boundaries.
Unlike this last-minute opportunism attempted by Huckabee, many of the other GOP presidential candidates have actually helped push the issue of national border security forward for some time. Tom Tancredo’s many years of hard work on the border crisis and illegal immigration issues have all the candidates striving to sound like him. Duncan Hunter can take personal credit for getting the highly effective San Diego border fence built. Ron Paul has been to the border with us first hand and aggressively pushed positive border legislation. Alan Keyes has done more than anyone to support the organizational development of MCDC, and personally participated in the Minuteman Border Fence Groundbreaking – advancing a citizen’s construction effort which has forced Congress to finally get the Feds building physical border fence.
Only one Minuteman group is conducting regular multi-state border security efforts, building fence and aggressively monitoring Washington DC: Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. We would like to extend an invitation to all the presidential candidates, Republican and Democrat, to come to the border and see what is really happening on our nation’s frontier. Not to take the safe little government photo-op helicopter ride, but see the lay-up sites full of trash and debris. See the rape trees. See the violent crime in the border towns. Walk on the pathways of destroyed environmental terrain trampled by tens of thousands of invading foreign migrants. See what the American elites’ support of broken borders, unfettered illegal immigration and sanctuary cities is doing to our fellow Americans who live on our borderlands, and how these failed policies imperil our nation’s safety, security and prosperity.
With your support MCDC continues to make Border Security and Illegal Immigration a national priority that must be resolved. Now more than ever weneed your help to continue the fight.
Now, I have long been of the opinion that this hyperanalyzing of people's records is useless and misleading. There is no way to govern for any extended period of time without having plenty to criticize on plenty of issues if your record is dissected enough. I am skeptical of Michelle's and others intense and harsh criticism of Huckabee's record, however I do believe everyone should see this email.
My Hubris Moment Vis a Vis Susan Estrich
I know that I am threatening to step over the lines of political analytical hubris as I disect this piece by Susan Estrich, however I will explain later what gives ME the right to challenge such an accomplished political operative. Before that, here is some disclosure. I am NOT a Huckabee supporter, and he wouldn't even be in my top three choices for the Republican nod. (I am a Rudy supporter)
Huckabee is now a bona fide contender because the knives are out all over the place for him. For instance, Rick Moran wrote this scathing analysis.
Red State is having a virtual orgy of scathing analyses of Mike Huckabee. Michelle Malkin has weighed in negatively on her forte, illegal immigration. It is obvious that the right is now picking apart every nook and cranny of his record. I have never been one to look this deeply at anyone's record. I know that in reading some of the most extreme analyses of Rudy's record that a lot can be twisted. I HAVE FOUND that detractors and supporters alike have totally misanalyed the phenomenon that is now the candidacy that is Mike Huckabee.
It really comes down to two words: charm and charisma. Those are universally appealing qualities and Huckabee has them in spades. He far exceeds those qualities compared to any of his Republican opponents, and matches even Barack Obama in those two qualities. He has a solid resume to boot which is something Obama doesn't have. Charm and charisma is the simple and succinct explanation for his tremendous appearances in every debate, and he exhibits those two qualities in every interview and appearance.
This brings me back to Susan Estrich. Now, the reason that I have decided to put Estrich in my cross hairs and not everyone of my colleagues is that she doesn't simply misanalyze Huckabee but the entire state of our party. Second, she is a Democrat and with all due respect to her, she knows less than me, a Republican, about the dynamics of our party. Now, here is a sampling of her analysis.
Second, while she claims that most of his proposals aren't mainstream, she backs none of it up with data. She claims ridiculously that the flat tax is a loser by attaching it to Forbes. The Flat Tax is not necessarily a loser, Steve Forbes is. The flat tax is new and revolutionary and most people don't know it or understand it. What such a proposal needs is a great ambassador to sell it. What a great salesperson needs is: charm and charisma. See where I am going here. Huckabee has all the attributes that Forbes was missing to be able to sell a revolutionary idea to the public like the flat tax. Besides what exactly will the Democrats counter with, tax increases?
She claims that while no one likes the IRS or taxes the flat tax is regressive. It is but it also gets rid of income taxes entirely. It bulks up sales taxes which are entirely voluntary (in other words you choose to buy stuff). In any case, I don't want to debate the fair tax here. What I do know is that the fair tax can be framed just fine if it has the right person framing it. Clearly, she dislikes the Fair Tax and dismisses it out of hand without much analysis. I believe that by doing so Estrich...well let me let Vizzini of The Princess Bride explain...
fell victim to one of the classic blunders!
She, not surprisingly, condescends to his faith and spirituality as if he is out of the mainstream. Eighty percent of this country is Christian. They may not be a Baptist Minister like Huckabee, however, again, when he speaks about his faith people WILL be impressed because: Charm and Charisma.She claims that she wouldn't be worried about a race between Huckabee and Hillary. I would. Huckabee is charming, charismatic and likeable and Hillary is not. He compares just as favorably against Obama, given that he is experienced and Obama is not. Everyone compares favorably to Edwards so that is beneath me.
The worst part of the analysis is the claim that Huckabee's rise is indication that our party is in trouble. Nothing could be further from the truth. His rise shows that our party is strong and vibrant. It shows that we have a plethora of good, qualified candidates that can at anytime capture anyone's attention. The Democrats have a scandal ridden, cold unlikeable, candidate who's only accomplishment is being married to a popular President competing against a lightweight with less than four years of national experience. In third position is a total fraud who claims to be for the little guy while living in a home that measures five digits in square footage. None of the other candidates are worth even one look.
The Democrats are arrogant and cocky because they think that Iraq has dragged the Reps down to where they can't recover. I think that will all change soon enough, and their cockiness is quite obvious in Estrich's piece. There is a reason why superbia, or pride and arrogance, is one of the seven deadly sins, and the Democrats should heed the warning not to revel in it.
Finally, I am still a bit of an internet dunce. Thus, I can't seem to figure out how to put the video into this post. Thus, for an example of Huckabee's charm and charisma check out the video in the post directly above this...
Huckabee is now a bona fide contender because the knives are out all over the place for him. For instance, Rick Moran wrote this scathing analysis.
But Mike Huckabee is not a conservative – at least not any kind of conservative that I would recognize as such. His tenure as Arkansas governor was marked by a corn pone populism – part Huey Long and part Jimmy Carter along with a massive increase in the tax burden on the individual taxpayer in his state as well as a sharp rise in spending. Huckabee channeled the ghost of Huey Long in his funding of state road improvements – largely through a hefty gas tax increase and a controversial bond issue. He also put a $5.25 premium on nursing home patients and raised the sales tax in the state. The Club for Growth detailed his “conservative” tax policy and ideas:
...The Club for Growth isn’t the only fiscally conservative group that has looked in askance at Huckabee’s record. The Cato Institute was also unimpressed by Huckabee’s tenure as governor. They gave him an “F” in fiscal policy for 2006. Hucksterites will point to his $80 million tax cut package he pushed through the legislature that eliminated capital gains taxes on home sales and indexed taxes to the inflation rate. But that’s just a drop in the bucket. While Huckabee claims to have cut taxes 90 times totaling $378 million, the state’s Department of Finance and Administration says he also raised taxes 21 times that brought in a whopping $883 million. Under his “conservative” governance, the “average Arkansan’s tax burden” went “from $1,969 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 1997, to $2,902 in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005, including local taxes.”
Red State is having a virtual orgy of scathing analyses of Mike Huckabee. Michelle Malkin has weighed in negatively on her forte, illegal immigration. It is obvious that the right is now picking apart every nook and cranny of his record. I have never been one to look this deeply at anyone's record. I know that in reading some of the most extreme analyses of Rudy's record that a lot can be twisted. I HAVE FOUND that detractors and supporters alike have totally misanalyed the phenomenon that is now the candidacy that is Mike Huckabee.
It really comes down to two words: charm and charisma. Those are universally appealing qualities and Huckabee has them in spades. He far exceeds those qualities compared to any of his Republican opponents, and matches even Barack Obama in those two qualities. He has a solid resume to boot which is something Obama doesn't have. Charm and charisma is the simple and succinct explanation for his tremendous appearances in every debate, and he exhibits those two qualities in every interview and appearance.
This brings me back to Susan Estrich. Now, the reason that I have decided to put Estrich in my cross hairs and not everyone of my colleagues is that she doesn't simply misanalyze Huckabee but the entire state of our party. Second, she is a Democrat and with all due respect to her, she knows less than me, a Republican, about the dynamics of our party. Now, here is a sampling of her analysis.
Huckabee is an interesting guy. He is a straight shooter, a former Baptist minister, a born-- not born-again--conservative.But as a Democrat, am I worried about Hillary or Barack taking on this former Arkansas governor?There is plenty to blast here. First, the minute you don't take someone seriously as an opponent is the moment your opponent defeats you, just ask USC about their loss to Stanford, the Soviets about their loss to the U.S. in 1980, Georgetown about their loss to Villanova, and the St. Louis Rams about their loss to the Patriots in 1999.
Not a little. Certainly not a lot.Not only is he out of step with the rest of America, as opposed to the right tail of the right tail of the Republican party, which is to say the religious conservatives who dominate the caucus and primary process, on social issues, but his proposals in such areas as federal taxation and especially Social Security are enough to make any Democrat’s mouth water.Not that anyone loves taxes, but eliminating the IRS and progressive tax system and replacing it with one that puts a flat tax on all consumption, which is the most regressive way to pay our bills, doesn’t have political winner written all over it. It’s one of those ideas that people with no chance of winning run and lose on. Think Steve Forbes. It’s not one you want to defend in the World Series.
But that’s nothing compared to his proposal to get rid of the payroll tax for Social Security, and his support for private retirement accounts. Did anyone say Florida?
Second, while she claims that most of his proposals aren't mainstream, she backs none of it up with data. She claims ridiculously that the flat tax is a loser by attaching it to Forbes. The Flat Tax is not necessarily a loser, Steve Forbes is. The flat tax is new and revolutionary and most people don't know it or understand it. What such a proposal needs is a great ambassador to sell it. What a great salesperson needs is: charm and charisma. See where I am going here. Huckabee has all the attributes that Forbes was missing to be able to sell a revolutionary idea to the public like the flat tax. Besides what exactly will the Democrats counter with, tax increases?
She claims that while no one likes the IRS or taxes the flat tax is regressive. It is but it also gets rid of income taxes entirely. It bulks up sales taxes which are entirely voluntary (in other words you choose to buy stuff). In any case, I don't want to debate the fair tax here. What I do know is that the fair tax can be framed just fine if it has the right person framing it. Clearly, she dislikes the Fair Tax and dismisses it out of hand without much analysis. I believe that by doing so Estrich...well let me let Vizzini of The Princess Bride explain...
fell victim to one of the classic blunders!
The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightlythis:...believing that something you don't like will also be disliked by the public at large.
less well-known is
She, not surprisingly, condescends to his faith and spirituality as if he is out of the mainstream. Eighty percent of this country is Christian. They may not be a Baptist Minister like Huckabee, however, again, when he speaks about his faith people WILL be impressed because: Charm and Charisma.She claims that she wouldn't be worried about a race between Huckabee and Hillary. I would. Huckabee is charming, charismatic and likeable and Hillary is not. He compares just as favorably against Obama, given that he is experienced and Obama is not. Everyone compares favorably to Edwards so that is beneath me.
The worst part of the analysis is the claim that Huckabee's rise is indication that our party is in trouble. Nothing could be further from the truth. His rise shows that our party is strong and vibrant. It shows that we have a plethora of good, qualified candidates that can at anytime capture anyone's attention. The Democrats have a scandal ridden, cold unlikeable, candidate who's only accomplishment is being married to a popular President competing against a lightweight with less than four years of national experience. In third position is a total fraud who claims to be for the little guy while living in a home that measures five digits in square footage. None of the other candidates are worth even one look.
The Democrats are arrogant and cocky because they think that Iraq has dragged the Reps down to where they can't recover. I think that will all change soon enough, and their cockiness is quite obvious in Estrich's piece. There is a reason why superbia, or pride and arrogance, is one of the seven deadly sins, and the Democrats should heed the warning not to revel in it.
Finally, I am still a bit of an internet dunce. Thus, I can't seem to figure out how to put the video into this post. Thus, for an example of Huckabee's charm and charisma check out the video in the post directly above this...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
