Republicans, Democrats, and taxes

August 31, 2007 – 11:45 am

I am really surprised that the tax fight hasn’t been engaged really. There was some, but not too much, noise when the tax-raising budget was passed by a Democratic Congress. But this is going to come back.

In theory, the Bush administration helped the 2008 GOP nominee because imminent, steep tax increases are on the horizon. One question will be how these will be presented over the next couple of years as this debate winds down. Capital Commerce has some great thoughts on this:

The Republican presidential candidates seem to be assuming that their Democratic rivals are going to push for repeal of all the Bush tax cuts. That’s why they are always talking about a potential $2 trillion-plus tax hike when those reductions expire at the end of 2010. More likely, Democrats will call for only the tax cuts on wealthier Americans to be repealed—such as raising the top rate from 35 percent to 40 percent—and for keeping most of the middle-class tax cuts, including rate reductions and a higher child tax credit.

The flip side of this is that the Democrats are going to propose lots of new spending, in the form of health care, etc. How are they going to pay for it? Especially, if they keep the middle-class tax cuts, etc.? Again, Capital Commerce:

Of course, Democrats are going to have to explain how they will pay for keeping the Bush tax cuts after 2010. Even if a Democratic president and Congress let them all expire, none of the new tax revenue—assuming there is any and the economy doesn’t tumble into a recession—could be spent on new programs like healthcare under current congressional budget rules.

Somehow, a circle is going have to get squared in this debate.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Dems building national precinct organization?

August 22, 2007 – 11:51 am

This is the first thing that the Dems are talking about in 2008 that actually scares me. Mike Dukakis is talking about building a real national precinct organization:

"We have to organize every damn precinct in the United States of America—all 185,000,” Mr. Dukakis said. “I’m serious. I’m deadly serious. I didn’t do it after the primary [in 1988]. Don’t ask me why, because that’s the way I got myself elected from the time I was running for town meeting in Brookline to the time I ran for governor.”

What’s he talking about?

“I’m talking about every precinct,” he said, “with a precinct captain and six block-captains that make personal contact with every single voting household. And I mean starting a year in advance. I’m not talking about parachuting in with two weeks to go. That’s baloney. And these people are people who’ve got to be from the precinct, of the precinct, look like the precinct and talk like the precinct.”

The real "idea" behind the RNC’s 72 hour program is: live voter-to-voter contact works. If the Dems actually built this, it would be transformative in American politics because this stuff actually works and turns out votes. Especially when tied into the government (usually corruptly) so that people get city services or no parking tickets if they support the incumbents.

What’s more, I bet that you can do this with soft money. George Soros, Tim Gill, and their buddies could turn on the tap, and it would be almost lights out.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Lefty blogosphere prepares to eat its own

August 14, 2007 – 8:43 am

Matt Stoller is laying the groundwork to attack Democrats over FISA:

I’ve been kicking around the idea with Chris that we should raise the costs of bad decision-making on things like FISA, or when they fold to Republicans on the supplemental or (insert fight here).

It’s not much to put up some google ads criticizing these members for their position on FISA.  The way Google adwords works is that the ad will only show up for the search terms we select.  That means that if we select ‘Chris Carney’, then people searching for Chris Carney (PA-04) will see an ad criticizing Chris Carney for his vote on FISA.  And the people who are searching for Chris Carney are people who want to know more about Carney, like reporters, activists, and constituents.  We can even geotarget his state, so only people in Pennsylvania see the ad. 

I think that this is dumb for a bunch of reasons. The first one is that, on security, there is plenty of evidence, including this very fact, that we have a more conservative country. Second, is their example. Chris Carney represents a pretty Republican district. This was not a "wave" district (NH-1) or a "realignment" seat (CT districts). They guy that he defeated was strangling his girlfriend who was 20 years younger.

There’s another point. Stoller has picked an issue that, according to Rasmussen,  simultaneously divides Democrats and is unpopular:

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans believe that allowing the government to intercept such calls makes the nation safer. Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democrats agree along with 53% of those not affiliated voters.

This is the kind of thing that the class of 74 Democrats did that destroyed their coalition.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (3)

Stoller’s conservative majority theory: A lesson for 2008

August 10, 2007 – 6:06 pm

Open Left’s Matt Stoller  argues here and here that there is an operative "conservative majority" in Congress right now. His basic thesis is summarized here:

In particular, this comment by Paul Rosenberg is I think accurate, as he argues that we are facing a conservative but not right-wing Blue Dog/DLC bloc combined with an anti-progressive elite consensus in the form of a hostile media establishment, a hostile think tank and academic structure, a hostile regulatory structure, a hostile set of cultural leaders and a set of old world economic incentives for elites.

Most conservatives will roll their eyes at this. But I was struck by this when contrasted with something that Brian Faughn wrote at the Weekly Standard today. Brian breaks down the 56 bills that have passed into law since the Democrats took over:

Of those, ‘only’ 20 are measures that rename federal facilities. Of the other measures signed into law, four would be considered major legislation, while the other 32 would be ranked anywhere between minor and trivial. There’s also one major piece of legislation–the lobbying reform bill–that has been neither signed nor vetoed.

And those four laws are:

  • FY07 Omnibus
  • FISA
  • 9/11 Commission
  • War supplemental

There’s a pattern here. The GOP side prevailed on two of these (War Supplemental and FISA). A populist security proposal succeeded on another (9/11 Commission). And the FY07 Omnibus was just disgusting, but demonstrated that either the Democrats aren’t serious about cutting spending or no one is serious about cutting spending. My money is on the latter.

The point of all this is that there appears to be a pro-security majority, and — still — no willingness to control spending. Now, what’s the point of all this? This is exactly what Newt Gingrich predicted after the election:

First, the obvious outcome of a Democratic-controlled Congress and a Republican White House is the need for bipartisan cooperation in order to get anything done. The key question is: Which kind of bipartisanship will emerge? Will there be a Ronald Reagan approach to bipartisanship which appeals to the conservative majority of the House? Or will there be an establishment bipartisanship which cuts deals between liberals and the White House?

Newt describes what a bipartisan conservative majority would look like:

On the other hand, a conservative populist grassroots strategy would almost certainly make daily interactions with liberal leaders more confrontational as they found themselves nominally chairing committees but losing votes on the floor and having their initiatives rejected by a conservative grassroots coalition. With a conservative populist grassroots strategy it is the 44 Blue Dog Democrats who would find themselves cross-pressured. In the House, some 54 Democrats won by claiming they were much more conservative than Nancy Pelosi, and much more conservative than the San Francisco values she represents. Here, they would be forced to choose between their voters back home and the promises made to them during the campaign, and their leadership.

Sound like DiFi flipping on Southwick? Or 41 House Democrats voting for FISA? Or the President’s veto threats and framing over Iraq funding and timing issues? Or a whole series of Motions to Recommit in the House?

Now, spending is always popular. The real test on economic issues will come when we see the reconciliation bills, private equity, Korean FTA, etc., come up. Still unclear.

There’s a lesson for conservatives here about the popularity of national security as an issue. It still works. There may be an issue here about taxes, but we don’t know yet. Our framing is wining so far.  And the Dems can’t find a position that works for them, as Stoller’s anger indicates. If we really start communicating on taxes, we might be able to succeed there too. (stopping a tax increase is much, much easier than cutting spending, as everyone knows)

Just a thought for your non-Ames weekend.

Tags: , , , ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Scary thought of the day

August 8, 2007 – 9:38 am

Marc Ambinder catches this:

In case you missed it, Chuck said on MSNBC earlier that Bill Clinton, in private conversations, has said that he couldn’t win the Democratic nomination in this environment; the party had shifted to the left on trade

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

What the online left is; Both left and right are wrong

August 7, 2007 – 9:12 am

It is amusing to read the stories coming out of YearlyKos. You have Chris Bowers’ "Why the Progressive Movement has stalled." And you have Townhall’s Amanda Carpenter’s "Laptop Liberals Plan Takeover at YearlyKos." Both are realizations that the online left isn’t quite what they thought it was.

The left thought that it was a broad-based movement that covered the entire Democratic coalition. Nope. It really was just a bunch of recent college grads and late boomers. The statistics were right. Mid-forties, kids, $90k, white, etc. Somehow a project created by these guys didn’t have broadbased appeal. Who woulda thunk? Bowers is particularly worried about the issue of diversity:

This is something we have seen repeatedly discussed on Open Left and in other places. No matter what other forms of diversity we have in the progressive blogosphere and netroots, we still generally lack racial and ethnic diversity. Also, this statement is applicable just as much to the “leadership” of the blogosphere and netroots as it is to the audience of the blogosphere and netroots.

Now, this is unsurprising to anyone who actually is engaged in politics. Democratic campaigns are very coalition and silo-oriented. In Markos’s and Armstrong’s book about what is wrong with the Democratic coalition and the liberal groups, they talk about the pro-choice groups, the women’s groups, the gay groups, etc. They never talk about the Hispanic groups, the African American groups, etc. They are playing in the liberal white part of the coalition, and it doesn’t expand beyond that. Maybe, it can, but there is probably something else going on.

This reminds me of something Jerome Armstrong said about the Barack Obama’s fundraising:

Obama "raised at least $32.5 million including at least $31 million that we can spend on the battle for the Democratic nomination."

Impressive; I wonder how much came from the internet.

It expressed, as did many other lefty blogosphere posts at the time, that while Obama was succeeding, it wasn’t online, so it only sort-of counted. They are simply fetishizing their own vision of their own movment. What is really happening is: (1) African-Americans sometimes respond to email more than blogs and (2) Obama is bringing new money to the process, including, probably, substantial upper-middle class African-American money, and (3) his post-partisanship is hated by a blogosphere built around Bush-hating and partisanship.

Now, Amanda is typical of the right. What?? This isn’t a bunch of hippies with laptops? No, again, as the surveys have indicated, these are upper-middle class white people with real jobs. And they care about changing the world. And they have found a way to be engaged.

They have created a genuine movement that is mobilizing a new class (in both sociological and Marxist senses) of people. It has been focused on Bush-hating, but it is self-conscious enough to know that it has to evolve.

All of this needs to be a lesson for both the right and the left. For the right, the lesson is that this isn’t just about technology. It is also about actual constituencies and voters and activists. The power of the (second generation, as opposed to the FreeRepublic generation, of the) online right won’t really come together until we find either a new set of people we can activate either financially or on the ground. (the netroots has done both) This will probably take an idea. (the netroots had partisanship and Bush-hating, which are not long-term, but effective in the short-term, and they might yet come out with policy ideas attached to the New Democratic Network)

For the left, they need to realize that they really are socio-economically located.

Either side can break out of their mold if they figure that out. But neither side has.

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)

What is the RNC doing?

July 27, 2007 – 12:08 pm

So I was poking around on YouTube and came up with this YouTube clip about Mitt Romney.  Something struck me about it: The Dems have trackers on our Presidential candidates. I checked with a source at the DNC, and he confirmed that DNC staff attend GOP presidential candidate events with trackers to video tape. They have produced this video and another. They are trying to frame the GOP candidates now. Note that this is not news. The DNC actually used this as the basis of a fundraising pitch. Referring to Macaca they said:

The Democratic Party needs to support that kind of diligent reporting in the new election cycle — with video crews permanently on the ground in early primary states, for example. What did John McCain say in New Hampshire? Who did Rudy Giuliani visit in Iowa? What did Mitt Romney do in South Carolina? The DNC needs to know the answers to these questions every time a Republican makes a campaign stop, and we have to be ready to take the proper course of action. Let’s set up a state-of-the-art operation to bypass the media and take the story of their lies, flip-flops, and out-of-whack priorities directly to you.

This is a side to the story about whether the amount of DNC attacks could be viewed as a frontrunner metric that was missed.

The DNC has research and is shaping opinion now. Furthermore, they are educating and familiarizing their activists, their bloggers, and the mainstream media about our candidates. That’s scary.

Where is the RNC on this stuff? Does anyone hear a peep out of them these days? Besides this fundraising letter?

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)

YouTube debate splits elites and base. That’s good

July 27, 2007 – 9:56 am

Now, I was not a big fan of the CNN/YouTube debate. I largely agree with the criticism that CNN used their editorial ability to pick questions that they couldn’t ask as reporters. That said, I was struck by something this morning. Somehow this seemingly trivial debate managed to get Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to talk about a real difference of policy and philosophy, instead of a stylistic one: whether Presidents should talk to bad countries. This real policy question has been debated for a full week now between Hillary and Obama, making the front page of the Post.

Not only the front page of the Post, but two opinions today. And yesterday two candidates from the other party, John McCain and Mitt Romney, have even gotten in to the discussion.

I think this is a real philosophical debate about foreign policy that cuts to a real fracture in the Democratic Party between (responsible) foreign policy elites and one  part of the liberal faction of the party base. And it took real people to ask this question. Why? Probably because the press is part of the same elite opinion formation apparatus as everyone else. (incidentally, that’s why they didn’t ask questions about Iraq. Very few serious people were asking questions about Iraq, so the press didn’t either)

In hindsight, it appears that the debate teased out a real difference between the elites of the Democratic Party and the base. That’s exactly what this debate should have done. This gimmicky debate has resulted in the first real large-scale policy clash of the 2008 cycle. Something that 8(?) media sponsored debates couldn’t really achieve.

Just imagine what kinds of exciting questions could be asked in the GOP debate.

Is it any surprise that the people who are running essentially against party elites like John McCain and Ron Paul are interested and Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney aren’t? Is it any surprise that the self-identified arbiter of conservative elite opinion, Hugh Hewitt, is opposed?

I think that means I have changed my mind on this. Let the debate go on! I guess that I am with Patrick Ruffini on this.

Tags: , , , , , ,

By eye | Comments (4)