Following the coming out party for the tea parties (no pun intended) in February, the liberals and Democrats mocked. President Obama was still wildly popular. There were just under 20 different cities with a few hundred attendees in each city. It was a passing fad. After all the president was popular and everyone expected him to remain so for an indefinite future. At the time, the conventional wisdom was the permanent and sustained electoral change to the Democrats. People were figuring out how quickly the country would move from center right to center left and how far left it would.
Then, the tea parties protested on April 15th again. Now, they were in near 1000 cities and the numbers ranged for a few dozen to twenty thousand in Atlanta. The totals numbered somewhere in the neighborhood of one million. Still people mocked. Sure, the tea parties could protest but what would it lead to. On the 4th of July, the tea parties protested again. Their numbers were similar to that of April 15th. Still, it seemed as though it was going to be nothing more than protests.
Then, the August recess hit. The same folks that attended the tea parties started finding town hall debates everywhere and they began challenging politicians over the health care debate. Suddenly, what was once a calm exchange of a few dozen citizens quietly speaking to their representatives turned into a full political force and story. The month of August was dominated by citizens challenging their politicians over the health care debate. While the Democrats struggle to pass health care reform to this day, one thing is certain. The health care proposal, if passed, will not only be unpopular but wildly unpopular and that was finished off by the citizen revolt in August.
All movements must, at some point, turn into an electoral force. That's what the tea parties are attempting to do now. They made their first stand in New York's 23rd District, and it was a total and miserable failure. Worse than that, most of the movement refuses to acknowledge it for what it is. Most folks believe they won. They seem to think that by losing they won.
Doug Hoffman was the perfect tea party candidate. He was an outsider. He was a consistent conservative. He believed in lower taxes, less government, less regulation, and free markets. He was against the bailouts, the stimulus, and the health care reform package. Furthermore, he was running in a district held by a Republican since the Civil War. Furthermore, he had almost every important conservative politician behind him: Fred Thompson, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, etc.
Yet, he lost. He lost because he became a theoretical politician. He became a symbolic politician. He was the sort of politician the tea parties wanted in the Republican party. Meanwhile, Dede Scozzafava was the sort of politician that the tea parties saw the Republican turning into without their revolt. They pitted Hoffman against Scozzafava and the Democrat won.
The Democrat, Bill Owens, spoke to issues important to his constituents: jobs, health care, education. Doug Hoffman spoke about how he's the true conservative. That's the thing about purists. They think everyone is like them. Most people just don't care that much. They want problem solvers. They want people that will help them feed their kids, get good health care, get a good education, etc. They don't care if it's a conservative or a liberal. Running as the consistent conservative will get the purists but it won't win. New York 23 proved that.
Yet, the tea parties seem to think they've won. They ran Scozzafava out of the race and their guy almost won. That's as delusional as it absurd. If this is the way it will go, they'll hand the Democrats a victory everywhere they take a stand. The tea parties are aiming at Florida next. There, the popular, but moderate, governor Charlie Crist is running against the consistent conservative but totally unknown Marco Rubio. They're ready to make another stand. Crist isn't nearly conservative enough for them. So, they're going full force to beat him in the primary. They may even win though Rubio will almost certainly then lose in the general election.
See, in the primary, the true and consistent conservative is important. In the general election, it means absolutely nothing. For the tea parties to be successful, they must move from the theoretical to the practical. No one, but them, cares who is most conservative. People care about getting problems solved. Conservatives seem to think that simply talking about conservatism is enough. If it were, Doug Hoffman would be the new Congressman from New York 23. He isn't because ultimately no one cares all that much.
Many times movements like this wind up doing more harm than good. That's where the tea parties are on the verge of going. They'll challenge each and every moderate in the primaries. Those moderates will lose. Then, their consistent conservative will trot out in the general election and talk about how they're the consistent conservative and they'll lose each and every time. All the tea parties will really do is make sure all sorts of liberals wind up in Congress.
Showing posts with label fred thompson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fred thompson. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
A House Divided in NY 23
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.
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.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
What the Republicans Need To Do To Find Their Way Out of the Wilderness
First, politics is a cyclical sort of an endeavor. Every four years or so, pundits everywhere ask questions of the losing party, and there is no shortage of doom and gloom regarding the losers. Each party has been left for dead by so called experts more times than anyone can count. So count on this...the Republican Party will rise again. Here is what they need to do to make this rise happen sooner rather than later.
1) The leadership needs to be competent and held accountable.
According to most polling, the overwhelming reason for the Republican's losses in both 2006 and 2008 could be qualified by such adjectives as corruption, incompetence, or by the phrase "losing their way". From 2001-2005, the party that was supposed to be the party of small government and fiscal discipline presided over the biggest expansion of government since the Great Depression. In that time, Duke Cunningham went to jail and Tom Delay got indicted. It was hard to vote for the party of small government and fiscal discipline when they governed with increases in spending, corruption, and government.
When the party governs in a way totally opposite of the way its principles are built on, the blame must rest in the leadership of the party. Denny Hastert, the main culprit, is gone, but the swamp hasn't been drained fully just yet. John Boehner was in a leadership position throughout and he's been the leader since 2007. Rather than backing the likes of Eric Cantor and Mike Pence when the issue of the bailout came up, he gave the bailout a lukewarm endorsement. Furthermore, despite having Congress receiving single digit approval ratings, his party, the minority party, lost about 30 seats.
Mitch McConnell has been head since 2007. Despite Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate receiving single digit approval ratings, it was the Democrats that gained as many as 9 seats.
Most importantly, it was the leadership of the RNC, NRSC, and NRHC that must be held accountable. The President wasn't on the ballot. The incompetent Congress, lead by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, were. Yet, it was the Republican Party held accountable for the incompetence. That lies directly at the feet of all those that created the national strategy for this campaign. I am glad to hear about the line up of potential leaders for the RNC. Whether it be Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele or Fred Thompson, any of them can finally be the face of the RNC that will be able to verbalize the Conservative principles that used to be synonymous with the party.
In any case, leadership must be competent and it must be held accountable. Getting crushed at the ballot box is not all right. The leadership can't keep their posts following such a crushing. This is exactly what happened following the 2006 elections. If it happens again, 2010 will be no better than 2008.
2) Return to Conservative principles
I am amused and puzzled by folks like Christie Todd Whitman that think the answer is to moderate the party. A moderate Republican Party is the Democratic Party lite. If someone wants to vote for liberal ideas, they will vote for a party that is all the way liberal, the Democratic Party.
What the party needs to do is make distinctions, then get out everywhere and not be afraid to debate those distinctions. Here is an example of the problem. We all know what Obama's tax proposal and proposal for health care are. Does anyone know what McCain's proposals on each are? That's the problem. The Republicans have plenty of great small government, free market ideas for revitalizing the economy, health care, and for the financial services sector. First, far too often, they have backed big government programs like No Child Left Behind, prescription drug, and the bailout. Second, the party has very few effective messengers. Ronald Reagan was called the great communicator and the benefit of his communication abilities is immeasurable.
The party needs someone with some sort of good communication skills. (Reagan was after all one of a kind) That's where a Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, or Fred Thompson could become an effective voice for the Conservative principles the party used to have.
The party needs a new Contract with America a la Newt Gingrich. The party needs to put again in writing what they stand for: small government, border security, free markets, lower taxes, and winning in Iraq and beyond. Unless the public can see what they stand for, no one will know.
3) Embrace the media culture don't whine about it.
We all know the MSM favors the Democrats something like four to one. We all know this isn't fair. We all know that this blatant bias costs votes. So what? Constantly whining about doesn't get any of these votes back.
Here's what I know. First, the MSM media is unbelievably biased. Second, the MSM drives the story by what they cover not what they say about it. Third, the media structure is totally fragmanted. What does all of this mean? It means that while the Democrats have it easier, the Republicans can use the media effectively for their own benefit.
First, the MSM is not the only place to get your message out. The Republicans have plenty of outlets from Fox News, talk radio, Youtube, the blogs, etc. Second, the MSM is full of egotistical blowhards and they can easily be manipulated. Did anyone notice how in the beginning of October there was three days when the lead story was Bill Ayers? That's because for a couple of days the McCain campaign effectively manipulated the media so that they drove a recycled story.
We all know that the New York Times won't lead with any story that even has a snow ball's chance in hell of hurting the Democrats. So what? By 2010, more people will read this blog than the New York Times. The MSM is terribly biased not only in how the cover a story but also what they cover. The MSM is also quickly losing influence. There are plenty of media sources that can start a story so that it reaches the mainstream. Drudge has no problem running with just about any story. Talk radio has been the start of plenty of media firestorms. Even the blogs have started plenty of stories like the fake docs of Bush in the Guard. Even Youtube has been the starting point for several media stories. The point is if Republicans have a story to tell all they need to do is find the right outlet to tell it. If there's a story of Democratic incompetence and corruption and the MSM refuses to cover it, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge will all be happy to hear the details. If necessary a Republican can make a Youtube video. If a story is worthwhile, there are plenty of ways for it to reach the folks.
4) Embrace the internet
Nowhere was the disparity in the two parties more striking than on the internet. Barack Obama made his website the center of everything. He created an online community and a way to fundraise. The McCain campaign's website was nearly non existent. Unless the Republicans embrace and figure out how to effectively use the internet, they will continue to get crushed. We live in the age of mass emails, links, and web downloads. The Republicans must be effective at all of them or they won't survive.
No one needs to reinvent the wheel here. Allow for users to be able to blog and comment on RNC sites and other sites like it. Furthermore, have an able moderator of said sites that can turn blogs into a good discussion. Announce events on these sites and use the sites so that folks from all over the country can coordinate attendance at major events. Finally, encourage your heavy hitters to come and blog on major Republican leaning sites like Redstate, Townhall, Little Green Footballs, and Powerline.
1) The leadership needs to be competent and held accountable.
According to most polling, the overwhelming reason for the Republican's losses in both 2006 and 2008 could be qualified by such adjectives as corruption, incompetence, or by the phrase "losing their way". From 2001-2005, the party that was supposed to be the party of small government and fiscal discipline presided over the biggest expansion of government since the Great Depression. In that time, Duke Cunningham went to jail and Tom Delay got indicted. It was hard to vote for the party of small government and fiscal discipline when they governed with increases in spending, corruption, and government.
When the party governs in a way totally opposite of the way its principles are built on, the blame must rest in the leadership of the party. Denny Hastert, the main culprit, is gone, but the swamp hasn't been drained fully just yet. John Boehner was in a leadership position throughout and he's been the leader since 2007. Rather than backing the likes of Eric Cantor and Mike Pence when the issue of the bailout came up, he gave the bailout a lukewarm endorsement. Furthermore, despite having Congress receiving single digit approval ratings, his party, the minority party, lost about 30 seats.
Mitch McConnell has been head since 2007. Despite Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate receiving single digit approval ratings, it was the Democrats that gained as many as 9 seats.
Most importantly, it was the leadership of the RNC, NRSC, and NRHC that must be held accountable. The President wasn't on the ballot. The incompetent Congress, lead by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, were. Yet, it was the Republican Party held accountable for the incompetence. That lies directly at the feet of all those that created the national strategy for this campaign. I am glad to hear about the line up of potential leaders for the RNC. Whether it be Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele or Fred Thompson, any of them can finally be the face of the RNC that will be able to verbalize the Conservative principles that used to be synonymous with the party.
In any case, leadership must be competent and it must be held accountable. Getting crushed at the ballot box is not all right. The leadership can't keep their posts following such a crushing. This is exactly what happened following the 2006 elections. If it happens again, 2010 will be no better than 2008.
2) Return to Conservative principles
I am amused and puzzled by folks like Christie Todd Whitman that think the answer is to moderate the party. A moderate Republican Party is the Democratic Party lite. If someone wants to vote for liberal ideas, they will vote for a party that is all the way liberal, the Democratic Party.
What the party needs to do is make distinctions, then get out everywhere and not be afraid to debate those distinctions. Here is an example of the problem. We all know what Obama's tax proposal and proposal for health care are. Does anyone know what McCain's proposals on each are? That's the problem. The Republicans have plenty of great small government, free market ideas for revitalizing the economy, health care, and for the financial services sector. First, far too often, they have backed big government programs like No Child Left Behind, prescription drug, and the bailout. Second, the party has very few effective messengers. Ronald Reagan was called the great communicator and the benefit of his communication abilities is immeasurable.
The party needs someone with some sort of good communication skills. (Reagan was after all one of a kind) That's where a Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, or Fred Thompson could become an effective voice for the Conservative principles the party used to have.
The party needs a new Contract with America a la Newt Gingrich. The party needs to put again in writing what they stand for: small government, border security, free markets, lower taxes, and winning in Iraq and beyond. Unless the public can see what they stand for, no one will know.
3) Embrace the media culture don't whine about it.
We all know the MSM favors the Democrats something like four to one. We all know this isn't fair. We all know that this blatant bias costs votes. So what? Constantly whining about doesn't get any of these votes back.
Here's what I know. First, the MSM media is unbelievably biased. Second, the MSM drives the story by what they cover not what they say about it. Third, the media structure is totally fragmanted. What does all of this mean? It means that while the Democrats have it easier, the Republicans can use the media effectively for their own benefit.
First, the MSM is not the only place to get your message out. The Republicans have plenty of outlets from Fox News, talk radio, Youtube, the blogs, etc. Second, the MSM is full of egotistical blowhards and they can easily be manipulated. Did anyone notice how in the beginning of October there was three days when the lead story was Bill Ayers? That's because for a couple of days the McCain campaign effectively manipulated the media so that they drove a recycled story.
We all know that the New York Times won't lead with any story that even has a snow ball's chance in hell of hurting the Democrats. So what? By 2010, more people will read this blog than the New York Times. The MSM is terribly biased not only in how the cover a story but also what they cover. The MSM is also quickly losing influence. There are plenty of media sources that can start a story so that it reaches the mainstream. Drudge has no problem running with just about any story. Talk radio has been the start of plenty of media firestorms. Even the blogs have started plenty of stories like the fake docs of Bush in the Guard. Even Youtube has been the starting point for several media stories. The point is if Republicans have a story to tell all they need to do is find the right outlet to tell it. If there's a story of Democratic incompetence and corruption and the MSM refuses to cover it, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge will all be happy to hear the details. If necessary a Republican can make a Youtube video. If a story is worthwhile, there are plenty of ways for it to reach the folks.
4) Embrace the internet
Nowhere was the disparity in the two parties more striking than on the internet. Barack Obama made his website the center of everything. He created an online community and a way to fundraise. The McCain campaign's website was nearly non existent. Unless the Republicans embrace and figure out how to effectively use the internet, they will continue to get crushed. We live in the age of mass emails, links, and web downloads. The Republicans must be effective at all of them or they won't survive.
No one needs to reinvent the wheel here. Allow for users to be able to blog and comment on RNC sites and other sites like it. Furthermore, have an able moderator of said sites that can turn blogs into a good discussion. Announce events on these sites and use the sites so that folks from all over the country can coordinate attendance at major events. Finally, encourage your heavy hitters to come and blog on major Republican leaning sites like Redstate, Townhall, Little Green Footballs, and Powerline.
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.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Open Thread
The Michigan primary is today. On the Republican side, it is wide open between McCain, Romney and Huckabee. Romney is making his final stand. McCain is looking to ride his momentum to a second victory, and Huckabee is trying to regain momentum.
Ironically because the state and the national party couldn't come to an agreement, the primary is nearly worthless for Dems. Even more ironic, Nevada holds a primary in a couple days that will be of importance to Dems and of no consequence to Republicans.
There was a dog and pony show in front of Congress about steroids. This is the prelude because the real fireworks will come next month when Clemens and his accuser will both testify in front of Congress...
The December jobs report continues to spook the market. In December, the jobs reported, 17k, was significantly lower than expected. It was the fourth straight month of lower than expected job growth. Furthermore, the unemployment rate shot up to 5% even from 4.7%. This continues to spook the market over a week later as each day brings new fears of a recesssion and continues to drop most of the major averages.
The Democrat's race for the Presidency has turned ugly or delicious depending on your perspective...
Hillary may or may not have said something that is racially charged. Obama may or may not have responded in a manner that stoked the controversy further, and we may or may not have a full out race war on our hands.
Things are heating up for the Republicans as well. McCain and Fred Thompson appear to now be trading jabs back and forth.
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.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The Right Blogosphere Demeans, Distorts and Demagogues vis a vis Fred Thompson
A few weeks ago prominent right blogger, Rick Moran of Right Wing Nut House, wrote this inflammatory piece about Mike Huckabee.
Here is how Michelle Malkin put Huckabee, Giuliani, and McCain through the illegal immigration guantlet.
This was all part of one piece. Just yesterday, she demeaned McCain in this mocking piece.
Frankly, everything that everyone here says about all of these candidates may in fact be true. The fact is that if anyone's record is examined long enough, anyone can find all sorts of problems with it. Each of the individuals that has been attacked has a long history of public service, and their records are isolated in some cases, or simply not put into perspective in other cases.
Therein lies the rub. Thompson has no record. He served undistinguished in the Senate for a few years. Big deal. That is why I would never support him. To me, a few years as an undistinguished Senator doesn't qualify anyone for the most powerful office in the world. I could care less what their position on anything is. Anyone's record is easy to attack. That's if they have a record. Thompson has no record. He only has campaign promises. Those promises are purely conservative. It is easy to be a pure conservative when you haven't actually governed. Governing ain't easy I like to say. That sort of perspective is lost, in my opinion, on the right blogosphere. Thus, I have heard that Romney's, Huckabee's, Giuliani's, and McCain's election, would all doom the Republican party at one time or another.
Can it really be so that the election of any of these individuals would doom the party, or maybe, just maybe, that is the narrative being driven by an increasingly desperate and intense group of folks that occupies the right blogosphere? To me, the intense criticism of every other candidate that the right blogosphere engages in can be summed up by this Shakespeare line
Like I said, I support Rudy. I think that there has never been as accomplished and gifted a leader in the years I have followed politics at least. Leadership, to me at least, is the most important thing. That said, I have no problem with any of the other candidates short of Ron Paul. I would never spend more than a sentence or two to bash any of the other candidates. Their records are really of no consequence to me anyway. No one even comes close to Rudy in terms of the things I am looking for and thus a deep analysis of anyone's record is unnecessary.
The same cannot be said of Thompson supporters. Every single other candidate's record has been hyper analyzed by Thompson supporters for any hint of something that they would consider unforgiveable. McCain is unacceptable because immigration, CFR, and too tight a relationship with the other side. Rudy can't be trusted because of abortion and New York policy on illegals when he was mayor. Romney once supported abortion and his health care plan was too close to universal health care. The list goes on and on. Only Thompson who has only words and no record can be trusted by the blogosphere on the right because he has said, and never done, all the right things.
Keep in mind that most of these candidates have now said all the right things also but because they have a record their record is compared to their words. Not so for Thompson...he has no record and thus everything he says is taken as gospel.
Now, as Thompson's campaign increasingly shows signs of problems, they begin to demonize all they consider responsible. The most obvious target now is the mainstream media.
That seems to be the conventional wisdom on the right blogosphere over the last few weeks. The Thompson campaign would be doing better if only the MSM gave him a fair shake. What a bunch of nonsense? Since when did the MSM ever decide a Republican primary? If anything, this would be a boon for the Thompson campaign. The fact is the MSM is not responsible for Thompson's lackluster poll numbers. To supporters of Thompson the MSM should ignore a surging candidate like Huckabee and focus on a candidate like Thompson, who is in single digits.
What the right blogosphere refuses to accept is that most primary voters aren't purists like them. The only reason to vote for Thompson is that he is the most conservative. If that is what you look for, then he is your guy. He isn't the most qualified, the most exciting, the most charismatic...he isn't anything but the most conservative. The right blogosphere is struggling with the idea that there are actually folks that vote in the same primary that don't consider a pure conservative pedigree to be the most important thing.
Their rationalizations and explanations range from absurd to amateurish
Again, I find it disingenous and manipulative whenever anyone isolates one poll and draws conclusions. Here, not only is one poll isolated but favorability numbers are used rather than simple numbers.
For fairness, here is the latest average of RCP where Thompson finds himself just south of 10% and in fourth place. Nationally, he is at 11.5% and also in fourth place. Now, his supporters can give all the upbeat spin they want, however those numbers speak for themselves.
Then, there is this...
My only response is huh?????
The reality is that Dick Morris was right when he analyzed Thompson as such.
and on and on. Whatever savior Conservatives thought they had in Thompson the reality was much weaker than the idealized version of the man that refused to officially enter the race for months. His supporters can say what they want however the candidate is just not anything special and that is why he has no traction anywhere but the blogosphere. No amounts of distortions, demeaning, and demagoguery will change that.
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.Now, I couldn't believe how scathing this piece was. After all, even if you don't support Huckabee, why would a fellow conservative treat him with such venom? The fact is that most of the candidates, short of Fred Thompson, have at one time or another been treated with unbelievably venom on the right blogosphere. This is across the board: from prominent sites like Redstate and Michelle Malkin to all sorts of small blogs all over the place. Huckabee isn't the only one. In fact, I noticed Huckabee's treatment because it was eerily similar to the way my candidate, Rudy Giuliani, was treated earlier in the campaign season by many of the same places.
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:
...
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.”
A liberal couldn’t be prouder of such a record.
...
We don’t need another George Bush. We don’t need Mike Huckabee. What we need is someone who will fight for conservative principles in government and wear out a veto pen in nixing excessive spending and any increase in taxes proposed by a Democratic Congress.
Here is how Michelle Malkin put Huckabee, Giuliani, and McCain through the illegal immigration guantlet.
Just last year, Huckabee lambasted opponents of the bipartisan shamnesty bill providing a mass pardon to illegal aliens as “driven by racism or nativism.” He called strict immigration enforcement — the kind he now supports — “sheer folly” in his campaign-timed book released earlier this year. He actively invited the Mexican government to establish a consulate in Arkansas — giving its office a $1 per year special office space rate — so that its foreign officials could start dispensing securityundermining matricula consular ID cards to illegal aliens for banking and employment purposes. And he’s not only for government in-state illegal alien discounts, he’s for expanding them far beyond what the federal DREAM Act proposed.
...
Bringing up the false convert rear is Sen. John McCain. Earlier this year, he was the most 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.
Bad enough that the Democrat candidates are still stuck in a 9/10 mentality on the nexus between immigration and national security. The question for conservatives is: Would a Republican immigration drag queen be any better — or worse?
...
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 a great man, Father Hesburgh, who said, ‘We must close the back door of illegal immigration in order to preserve the front door of legal immigration.’”
This was all part of one piece. Just yesterday, she demeaned McCain in this mocking piece.
Now, for full disclosure, I don't know who Michelle supports however if she has attacked Thompson I haven't found the attacks. To say that voting for McCain is simply the worst of two evils though is absurd. McCain has a long and distinguished careeer in public service. He is a hero. He was the only one to stand by the surge while everyone else ran for cover. He was one of the few Republicans to call the Iraq policy out while it was still in its infancy. While he may not be my first choice, it is totally unfair to claim he is only the best of two evils.Here’s some straight talk about John McCain from New Hampshire voters, via the Boston Globe. The voters’ main concerns: He’s a Ted Kennedy shamnesty supporter and he’s too old:
...
Allahis depressingly right about this:
I’m not looking forward to nine months of “well, he beats the alternative” posts next year, but then we’re pretty much guaranteed that no matter who wins the nomination.
Frankly, everything that everyone here says about all of these candidates may in fact be true. The fact is that if anyone's record is examined long enough, anyone can find all sorts of problems with it. Each of the individuals that has been attacked has a long history of public service, and their records are isolated in some cases, or simply not put into perspective in other cases.
Therein lies the rub. Thompson has no record. He served undistinguished in the Senate for a few years. Big deal. That is why I would never support him. To me, a few years as an undistinguished Senator doesn't qualify anyone for the most powerful office in the world. I could care less what their position on anything is. Anyone's record is easy to attack. That's if they have a record. Thompson has no record. He only has campaign promises. Those promises are purely conservative. It is easy to be a pure conservative when you haven't actually governed. Governing ain't easy I like to say. That sort of perspective is lost, in my opinion, on the right blogosphere. Thus, I have heard that Romney's, Huckabee's, Giuliani's, and McCain's election, would all doom the Republican party at one time or another.
Can it really be so that the election of any of these individuals would doom the party, or maybe, just maybe, that is the narrative being driven by an increasingly desperate and intense group of folks that occupies the right blogosphere? To me, the intense criticism of every other candidate that the right blogosphere engages in can be summed up by this Shakespeare line
thou dost protest a bit too much
Like I said, I support Rudy. I think that there has never been as accomplished and gifted a leader in the years I have followed politics at least. Leadership, to me at least, is the most important thing. That said, I have no problem with any of the other candidates short of Ron Paul. I would never spend more than a sentence or two to bash any of the other candidates. Their records are really of no consequence to me anyway. No one even comes close to Rudy in terms of the things I am looking for and thus a deep analysis of anyone's record is unnecessary.
The same cannot be said of Thompson supporters. Every single other candidate's record has been hyper analyzed by Thompson supporters for any hint of something that they would consider unforgiveable. McCain is unacceptable because immigration, CFR, and too tight a relationship with the other side. Rudy can't be trusted because of abortion and New York policy on illegals when he was mayor. Romney once supported abortion and his health care plan was too close to universal health care. The list goes on and on. Only Thompson who has only words and no record can be trusted by the blogosphere on the right because he has said, and never done, all the right things.
Keep in mind that most of these candidates have now said all the right things also but because they have a record their record is compared to their words. Not so for Thompson...he has no record and thus everything he says is taken as gospel.
Now, as Thompson's campaign increasingly shows signs of problems, they begin to demonize all they consider responsible. The most obvious target now is the mainstream media.
Fred didn't follow the media's rules. He didn't enter when they said he should have. He hasn't kissed up to them. He didn't run around for a year trying to curry their favor.
2. Fred is a real conservative. The last thing the MSM wants is a Reaganite Republican running the table on them just like Reagan did. Fred is consistent on the issues and more than any other candidate can carry the conservative message without a lot of baggage.
3. Fred's personality. He is not the MSM's type. Blunt. Plainspoken. Not too interested in what they think. They'd rather have someone running around courting them (like McCain and Romney).
That seems to be the conventional wisdom on the right blogosphere over the last few weeks. The Thompson campaign would be doing better if only the MSM gave him a fair shake. What a bunch of nonsense? Since when did the MSM ever decide a Republican primary? If anything, this would be a boon for the Thompson campaign. The fact is the MSM is not responsible for Thompson's lackluster poll numbers. To supporters of Thompson the MSM should ignore a surging candidate like Huckabee and focus on a candidate like Thompson, who is in single digits.
What the right blogosphere refuses to accept is that most primary voters aren't purists like them. The only reason to vote for Thompson is that he is the most conservative. If that is what you look for, then he is your guy. He isn't the most qualified, the most exciting, the most charismatic...he isn't anything but the most conservative. The right blogosphere is struggling with the idea that there are actually folks that vote in the same primary that don't consider a pure conservative pedigree to be the most important thing.
Their rationalizations and explanations range from absurd to amateurish
Fred Thompson is viewed favorably by 77% of likely Iowa Republican Caucus goers according to Rasmussen’s latest Iowa Polling (Dec 19). That is the highest favorable rating of any Republican candidate. Romney’s favorability rating is at 73%, Huckabee 67%, McCain 63% and Giuliani 58%. The trend to watch: Huckabee’s favorability rating dropped from 81% to 67% in just one week. This poll was taken as Fred’s “Hands Down” bus tour began in Iowa. Fred will continue to campaign in Iowa exclusively until the caucus, maximizing his opportunity to turn those high favorable ratings into votes.
Again, I find it disingenous and manipulative whenever anyone isolates one poll and draws conclusions. Here, not only is one poll isolated but favorability numbers are used rather than simple numbers.
For fairness, here is the latest average of RCP where Thompson finds himself just south of 10% and in fourth place. Nationally, he is at 11.5% and also in fourth place. Now, his supporters can give all the upbeat spin they want, however those numbers speak for themselves.
Then, there is this...
There are many reasons we need to keep Fred in the campaign. He's the reliable consistent etc etc CONSERVATIVE. He respects the Constitution. I think we here are all clear on the reasons to support Fred!
Now I want to share with you, gentle reader, one reason that is specific to me. Fred's loyalty to the Constitution stands between me and the wild side. That's right...
My only response is huh?????
The reality is that Dick Morris was right when he analyzed Thompson as such.
He’s A Political Light Weight and He’s Not Ready For The National Stage
In his first week of campaigning, Thompson has shown that he has neither the substance nor the experience that is essential for a serious presidential candidate. One wonders what makes him — and his supporters — think that he is, in any way, up to the job.
...
The Political Insider
Thompson is not at all the outsider maverick that he claims to be. In fact, he’s the ultimate Washington insider. He was a successful lobbyist before he went to the Senate and he returned to lobbying after leaving it. Until very recently, he worked for Equitas, a British insurance company trying to squirm out of paying for asbestos/cancer claims. He also represented a TennesseeSavings and Loan, Toyota and Perrier.
...
Turmoil Within
All summer, the war has raged, not pitting Thompson against his Republican rivals, or even his Democratic opposition, but featuring a battle of Mrs. Fred Thompson against virtually her husband’s entire campaign staff.
The list of axed, fired, or forced-to-resign employees would distinguish a campaign of far greater tenure, but coming in a candidacy yet even to be announced, it is truly unique.
and on and on. Whatever savior Conservatives thought they had in Thompson the reality was much weaker than the idealized version of the man that refused to officially enter the race for months. His supporters can say what they want however the candidate is just not anything special and that is why he has no traction anywhere but the blogosphere. No amounts of distortions, demeaning, and demagoguery will change that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
