Why is Hillary talking about housing?

August 8, 2007 – 8:18 am

Basically, my answer is that Hillary Clinton is a smart politician, she sees an issue coming, and she is trying to get in front of it.

I have argued repeatedly that the housing and credit bust is going to be a huge issue. It is probably an unsolvable one. After all, in her proposal, Clinton proposes a $1b fund. But, for example, Countrywide’s profits fell in Q2 by about 1/3rd of that number, due primarily to foreclosure problems. When American Home Mortgage went under last week, here was the problem:

The company has been cut off from credit and didn’t have money yesterday to make $300 million of mortgages it had already agreed to provide, the Melville, New York-based company said today in a statement. American Home said it anticipates $450 million to $500 million of loans probably won’t get funded today.

Half the size of her fund in one day. Clinton’s proposals are kind of like throwing a pebble in a river. It makes a splash, but is ultimately, inconsequential because the amounts are just so big.

So why is she doing it? As I said, an issue is coming. It will certainly be debated. And what will happen? Hillary says, according to AP and the NH Union Leader:

Clinton said she’ll introduce her plan when Congress reconvenes next month. If the legislation passes and gets vetoed, she said, she’ll make it a top priority if she’s elected President.

In other words, she wants to be on the front-line of the legislation. The legislation will probably be called Clinton-someone, unless Chris Dodd tries to get in the way of it or own the issue. But Dodd is running for the Cabinet or VP, so there’s little chance of that.

So the answer is that there is an intractable problem. Hillary has found a way to feel people’s pain and be at the center of a debate on the "solving" side. And now anyone, especially a Republican, who criticizes her will be debating the issue on her terms. Good politics.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Zack Space giving away his district?

August 6, 2007 – 6:01 pm

The Cleveland Plain Dealer blog is reporting that Zack Space flipped his vote on the motion to recommit on the Agriculture bill last Thursday:

Either facing pressure from their party leaders or getting last-minute facts — accounts vary — several members of Congress from both parties, including Dover Democrat Zack Space, began changing their votes.

. And he flips his vote for a San Francisco liberal who has to steal it anyways. And for what? What was the issue? According to CQ:

The GOP motion that touched off the furor would in effect have amended the spending bill (HR 3161) to bar use of funds to employ or provide housing for illegal immigrants.

This was a Republican district. It is extremely anti-trade. It is extremely nativist. I was in this district for a little under a week during the election. Illegitimately stealing a vote to support illegal aliens? That’s not gonna fly.

Tags: , , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

With illegitimate vote, Dems give GOP perfect political issue

August 4, 2007 – 9:36 am

I grew up in the city of Chicago. I have watched polls in Philadelphia. I have been threatened with physical violence by union goons for offering people a piece of GOP literature. Urban Republicans like me often have an acute sense of Democratic corruption, especially as it applies to the voting process.

When Steny Hoyer says, according to CQ, that, “We control this House, not the parliamentarians!” it reminds me of a friend’s dad who had to change his registration to Independent from Republican before the sidewalk in front of his (sole proprietor) pharmacy could get fixed.

So it is becoming clear that the Democrats broke the rules in running the House. And they broke the rules to prevent a measure to pass that would make sure that government money didn’t go to illegal immigrants in some small way. Doesn’t that sum up exactly the caricature of Democrats? This is something that you can run against. And, I agree with Brian Faughn that CQ’s writing that the Dems stole the vote is going to make this very, very hard on the Dems.

In October of 2005, Matt Continetti wrote in the NYT in an article that was very critical of the Republican majority (and rightly so):

But then you take solace in the idea that the Republican Party has once again bested the Democrats, who after all took 40 years to sprout the warts of power.

It took the Dems 6 months. That’s incredible. Who’s running the House like a plantation now?

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Cole throws Doolittle under bus?

August 3, 2007 – 12:36 pm

And, perhaps, well he should. From the Sac(ramento) Bee:

But in a telephone news conference Monday, NRCC Chairman Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., indicated that the political ground has a way of shifting.

"There’s a factor outside of normal politics that needs to be resolved," Cole said. "We’re keeping a close eye on the situation. We hope it resolves itself. We hope it turns out OK for John. …

"But it sure would be helpful to him and to us if a 3-year-old investigation was brought to a conclusion one way or the other," he said. "I am concerned as much with John’s situation as a friend and colleague as I am with that seat as a political prognosticator."

Now, surely Tom Cole knew at the time of the interview that this was an interview about primary challengers to John Doolittle. And, surely, this would be taken as encouragement to possible primary challengers. No? Why? Ethics problems:

Doolittle said after the raid that federal prosecutors think that Abramoff paid Julie Doolittle’s company for work it never performed as a way to funnel money to the congressman for help he gave the lobbyist’s clients. Doolittle has insisted that neither he nor his wife has done anything wrong.

Doolittle’s wife was also on campaign payroll and getting a percentage of funds raised. In other words, every $5k PAC check that went to Doolittle’s committee put $500 in his pocket. So Eric Egland, one possible opponent is making this the issue:

Egland said Monday he believes Doolittle cannot win if there is another matchup between the congressman and Brown.

"If John Doolittle is the nominee, we will surrender our conservative voice in Washington, D.C., for a generation," Egland said in an interview.

In a prepared statement, he said that "change is needed in Washington and the district."

"I have seen firsthand how failures in congressional ethics and leadership have corrupted our government and made our troops, our economy and our nation more vulnerable," he said.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

McCain and the ethics bill

August 2, 2007 – 8:07 am

Yesterday, Bob Novak said about the ethics bill:

Because their leadership has not cared for this struggle from the start, Senate Republicans will likely be forced to vote for this weak bill simply because they will otherwise look like they are obstructing reform.

There was however, one alternative, John McCain, once described by Hotline as "Senate Majority Leader, whoever is in the majority" is the only person who has the stature to turn what would be obstruction into a moral crusade. And that is what he is going to do. From the Hill:

DeMint said McCain’s national reputation as a reformer would help him and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), another vocal opponent, highlight the bill’s weaknesses to other senators and the American people, and could help revive his flagging campaign for president.

McCain returned to the Senate Monday night to develop strategy with Coburn, DeMint and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). He huddled with Coburn and Burr on the Senate floor Monday night.

So McCain is engaged strategically. And he is stepping in where the Senate Leadership is silent, and therefore complicit in non-reform. Back to Novak:

The question for Republicans is simple: how many more of their members have to go to jail before their leaders embrace the concept of reform? The motivation need not even be so negative: The conservative ideological position of limited government gives the GOP an opportunity to exploit a great political issue by embracing reform. Yet neither the prospect of several Republicans’ going to prison nor the disastrous loss of the 2006 election has weakened the party’s embrace of the earmark model they ran from while holding the majority, in which each congressman provides for his district or state according to the New Deal model of "Tax, tax! Spend, spend! Elect, elect!"

Not only does the Senate leadership not embrace reform. It opposes it. And it attacks reformers. Indeed, Leader Mitch McConnell has gone so far as to throw DeMint under the bus for his support of principle and ethics:

“As a result of that, none of our people were involved in the final product,'’ McConnell told reporters Tuesday. “But in a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves because one of our members prevented us from going to conference.'’

It is clear what has happened. DeMint and Coburn have stood on principle. McCain is providing the leadership and stature. And the Senate Republican leadership is on the sidelines, in effect complicit in gutting the reforms and mute about corruption in their caucus and party.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Ted Stevens demands corporate jet

August 1, 2007 – 6:39 am

You have got to be kidding me. Check this out:

But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation’s new restrictions on lawmakers’ use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.

Poor FBI-raided Ted Stevens. Wants to fly with the big execs.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

The story of the week is corruption

July 31, 2007 – 8:26 am

But what the opening paragraph will be will depend on the Senate Republican Leadership and John McCain.

You see, no story about the Senate will be complete without mentioning that Senator Ted Stevens’ (R-AK) home was raided by the FBI and IRS. But Harry Reid has been kind enough to offer up the perfect compliment in the form of a gutted ethics bill.

Will the leadership back away from Senator Stevens, as recommended by Erick Erickson? Will it decide that an ethics bill from which Reid stripped the earmark reform is not adequate, and it will fight?

Or will it play the backroom politics, transactional, "factory game" and support the bill? That’s where my money is.

If leadership doesn’t step up, the only person who can give this bill a high-enough profile will be McCain. He has credibility with the American people and with the press to stand up and say "this is not right." If the leadership refuses to deliver the message, it is likely that John McCain is the only one who can cut through the cruft and do it.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Corruption, ethics, and party brands

July 30, 2007 – 1:50 pm

Karl Rove spoke to Members of Congress last week, and one of the issues that came up was ethics. Bob Novak has some of the story:

Karl Rove, President Bush’s political lieutenant, told a closed-door meeting of 2008 Republican House candidates and their aides Tuesday that it was less the war in Iraq than corruption in Congress that caused their party’s defeat in the 2006 elections.

Rove’s clear advice to the candidates is to distance themselves from the culture of Washington. Specifically, Republican candidates are urged to make clear they have no connection with disgraced congressmen such as Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley. In effect, Rove was rebutting the complaint inside the party that Bush is responsible for Republican miseries by invading Iraq.

While Novak sees a political agenda in this, I think that Rove is basically right. After all, people prefer Democrats on spending, deficits, etc. Ultimately, these probably boil down to the question, "who do you trust with your money"? And right now, silly as it sounds, the answer is Democrats.

That’s why it is so important that the GOP beats up the Dems over the ethics conference report. From Roll Call:

According to sources close to the issue, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has called on Feingold to help push the bill over the goal line. Reid hopes Feingold’s progressive street credentials and reputation as a reform-minded lawmaker will help keep the left flank from bolting, particularly if Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) make controversial changes to the bill.

White House hopeful McCain, meanwhile, already has thrown in his lot with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who has attacked the secretive process Reid and Pelosi have used to rewrite the bill and has threatened to filibuster it if its earmark provisions are changed.

If anything is clear, it is that Pelosi and Reid and just doing the same-ole same-ole. If the GOP fights this successfully and makes the Dems the issue, then this could be an important turning point in 2008.  We shall see.

UPDATE: On cue, TPM Election Central comes up with this:

In a new memo, the firm lays out the results of focus groups it held in a pair of Congressional district held by GOP moderates who barely survived 2006, Mark Kirk (IL) and Jim Walsh (NY).

"Democrats in Congress are given credit for wanting change and most especially for ensuring that Bush no longer has a blank check from Congress," the memo says. "But in most voters’ minds, it boils down to results; good intentions and legitimate finger-pointing aside, things simply haven’t changed under Democratic control."

The memo concludes that Dems would fare better if they worked harder to focus voter attention on the fact that the Dem leadership’s agenda is being stymied by Presidential vetors and GOP obstructionism.

Which illustrates both the good and the bad. A filibuster without good communications may not be enough.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (2)

2002 versus 2008

July 30, 2007 – 9:23 am

Patrick Hynes makes a great point this morning with some videos of Jeanne Shaheen from her 2002 debate against now-Senator John Sununu:

I think Shaheen will win the Democrat primary if she decides to run. Easily. But I see her numbers coming down quite a bit when the public is made aware of her past statements:

Basically, it turns out that Shaheen was pro-Iraq war, pro-Bush tax cuts, and pro-Bush-style national security. (videos after the jump) The fact is, in what was then a solid GOP state you probably had to be. So let’s just work out some of her options. None of them are particularly good.

First, she can stand by her positions. More likely, she will drop Iraq like a hot potato, but stand by her position on tax cuts.  After all, Sununu has dropped his support for Iraq because "he never had any idea Bush would screw it up this badly" or something similar. Shaheen just takes the same line. But what about things like tax cuts, wiretapping, etc. She sticks with her statements. Call this the "stand by her principles" option.

Her problem is that there’s a big division in the NH Democratic Party right now between the lefty activists and the Democratic centrists. NH GOP Chair Fergus Cullen talked about it back in June:

Call it the Carol Shea-Porter Gravitational Effect. For the past decade, conventional wisdom held that New Hampshire Democrats had to position themselves as moderate centrists to win elections. Former governor Jeanne Shaheen taught her party that lesson. Mark Fernald ignored it to his peril. John Lynch absorbed it and, for a time, prospered.

Then in last fall’s congressional primary, war protester and unabashed left-wing activist Shea-Porter trounced the Shaheen School’s candidate, a play-it-safe political vegetarian who avoided the rhetorical red meat the Democratic base starved for in an effort to preserve his electablity. Shea-Porter went on to edge an incumbent Republican in one of the nation’s biggest upsets of 2006.

In other words, Shaheen was the model of centrism, back in the day. The NH Democratic Party may have learned a different lesson since then (or it may have gotten lucky in a really good environment) There is room for a nasty primary in NH on that question. Steve Marchand, the mayor of Portsmouth, could be the representative of the Carol Shea Porter school of principled left-wingism.

So her second option is to flip-flop and cave to the left. Now flip-flopping may be the new normal, but it is going to be a major attack on both sides in 2008 in the primaries and the general.  Ultimately, the question that Marchand and Carol Shea Porter will be asking is "does Shaheen have a principle?"

This raises a deeper question. In 2002, Democrats ran to the right, trying to avoid the bulldozer of 9-11. Five years later, the party base has been flooded with anti-war activists. Are the centrists who ran in 2002 electable in primaries? If they flip-flop are they going to be exposed to charges of  being unprincipled? Do progressive activists care?  In other words, as revolutions in parties bring new activists, they often bring new candidates. And the anti-war activism of the 70s reshaped (and ultimately discredited) the working-class Democratic Party that once was. After all, only part of what killed the Democratic Party in the 80s and 90s was their credibility on national security. The rest was the rest of the liberal agenda that finally won in the intra-party fights in 1974.

Perhaps the real question is, could the 2008 Democratic primaries, as the air saturates with attacks of flip-flopping on the war and other issues, end up being a battle between the new generation, the post-post-9/11 Democrats like Marchand, Obama, Carol Shea Porter, etc. versus the old Generation, the post-9/11 Democrats like Clinton, Shaheen, etc. What’s the legacy of all this going to be?

Where does that leave Shaheen in New Hampshire?

Videos after the jump. Read More »

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)

The 2008 congressional environment

June 21, 2007 – 3:09 pm

Lots of ink has been spilled over how hard the 2008 environment is going to be for Republicans. This mostly focuses on Bush and Iraq. While most of this is correct, I wonder how overwhelming this will be. Gallup underscores the argument:

The percentage of Americans with a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress is at 14%, the lowest in Gallup’s history of this measure – and the lowest of any of the 16 institutions tested in this year’s Confidence in Institutions survey. It is also one of the lowest confidence ratings for any institution tested over the last three decades.

Now, there have been discussions for a while about why the numbers for Congress have been falling. The most recent collapse appears to be due to the loss of faith in their own leaders by the left, especially over Iraq Other people are alleging that the immigration issue is the problem, but that appears to be an ideological position, not one supported by the data.

What is clear is that there will be a strong anti-Washington sentiment. This clearly won’t help the GOP in maintaining the White House. It won’t help in the Senate either. Just look at which seats are up. Looking locally, it might help in the House, however. This was the argument made by Tom Cole to a bunch of conservative bloggers at the NRCC on Tuesday.

Now, what to make of this? One scenario is that the election will nationalize. This would be a 2004, 1980, or 1952 model. If that is the case, it is likely to be a very bad year for Washington. However, another model in 1992 where there is a disconnect and a malaise. Then, Ross Perot was capable of expressing that malaise. I don’t see any candidates or movements on the horizon that are capable of speaking to the anger and frustrations of the people.  But the entrance of Nader expresses some of the distaste on the far-left, while the more

In any case, look for candidates of all sorts to push anti-Washington agendas. That is why Mitt Romney says, "I can’t wait to get my hands on Washington." (Never mind that his campaign is stuffed to the gills with lobbyists. I know what they would do if they got their hands on Washington) And why Thompson says, "After eight years in Washington, I longed for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood."

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (5)