Why the Democrats shouldn’t run Congress…

April 9, 2007 – 6:10 am

Sorry for being a little off-topic, but I thought this was classic. Don Wolfensberger, one of the great Congressional procedure wonks, described in Roll Call ($) the procedure that allowed the GOP to amend a the DC vote bill with a DC gun ban provision. The whole event is a brilliant lesson in the hypocrisy of the House Democratic leadership. This is a long post and a little esoteric. So, if you are interested in Congressional procedure and Democratic hypocrisy, read more after the jump.
Read More »

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

House Armed Services stops using “Global War on Terror”

April 4, 2007 – 6:06 am

A little off the 2008 theme, but… Wow.  The Military Times has the story:

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”

…

Committee aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said dropping or reducing references to the global war on terror could have many purposes, including an effort to be more precise about military operations, but also has a political element involving a disagreement over whether the war in Iraq is part of the effort to combat terrorism or is actually a distraction from fighting terrorists.

…

“You have to wonder if this means that we have to rename the GWOT,” said a Republican aide, referring to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medals established in 2003 for service members involved, directly and indirectly, in military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Poll: People supporting GOP on Iraq Supplemental

April 2, 2007 – 6:46 am

Roll Call ($) has the story. I argued a long time ago that Iraq was going to be more of a problem for the Democrats than the Republicans. What has happened since then?

First, Bush is going to get to veto a pork-laden bill. And the people like that:

The new polling data, conducted March 25-27 for the Republican National Committee by Public Opinion Strategies, also found that 64 percent of voters oppose Democrats’ decision to include billions in unrelated domestic spending in the recent Iraq War supplemental.

The strategist also pointed to the poll’s finding that by a 50 percent to 40 percent margin Democrats stand to take the blame for any potential funding shortfalls should Bush veto the spending bill. The White House has issued a veto threat over provisions in the bill setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq as well as the domestic earmarks.

Second, Democrats are divided. Barack Obama has already indicated that the Democrats are going to take this one sitting down. And Hillary is already double-speaking. And the Democrats are divided. That’s why Rangel had to buy the remaining votes.

Ultimately, the Democrats are only going to come to a unified position through a presidential primary. And with the front-runner double-talking and the insurgent "caving", it is hard to imagine how the Dems are going to pull that off.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Hillary raises $26m

April 1, 2007 – 4:24 pm

That’s the number from the Hotline. They note that, for her, that isn’t really that impressive. Furthermore, this is a primary and general number. As the Romney memo notes, this number is a little bunk. The NYT’s Caucus points out results for Joe Biden, $3m, and Bill Richardson, $6m. They also give us a bit of wisdom:

In the logic of campaign publicity, campaigns are likely to consider it advantageous to announce numbers at the same time as Senator Clinton if they want their relatively low numbers to be overshadowed in the news coverage. Conversely, waiting suggest they may want to attract attention to unexpectedly strong results.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

McCain on the House Iraq Supplemental

March 26, 2007 – 12:47 pm

John McCain has harsh words for the House Democratic Leadership on the Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Bill that they just passed. This is what he said at a town hall meeting in Plymouth, NH:

McCain has been taking some heat for skipping some votes recently. But he is canceling some fundraisers to participate in the debate in the Senate. He called the Democratic approach a "new recipe for defeat".

Tags: , , , , ,

By eye | Comments (2)

How bad is “The Surge” for McCain? What about the Dems?

January 8, 2007 – 9:57 am

In recent weeks, there has been interminable talk about how John McCain’s Presidential hopes could be over because of his position on Iraq. While I see that McCain’s position on Iraq could be a threat to his candidacy, I think that the Democrats are between a rock and a hard place.

President Bush is clearly telegraphing what his proposal will be. And the Democrats are clearly responding. But not coherently. This issue will split the Democrats. Democrats running for Pre sident must oppose the surge. The base will kill them in their cribs if they don’t. Just look at the blogs (here, here, and innumerable more). This issue defines the Democratic party today. And opposition to the war is the most credible explanation of what happened November. And stories about more years being required in Iraq, are exactly the sort of thing that feeds the base. The New Yorker has a great story on the problem for the Democrats.

But let’s be clear about something. If the President pushes it, there will be votes. At this point, Iraq is the Bush legacy. And his legacy will bad if he doesn’t start sharing ownership on this. And Congress, and that means Democrats now, are the obvious people to start sharing ownership with.

It seems that the Democrats have 3 options:

  1. Allow the surge with open support. The Democrats shatter. John Edwards or Al Gore win the nomination. Maybe Feingold gets back in.
  2. Stop the surge. Then all the Dems have is an (old) issue. But Bush and the Republicans can claim that the Democrats gave up on the war. Anything bad that happens, at that point, GOPers can blame on the Dems. But Iraq will be gone. We might even pull out.
  3. Allow the surge with extensive and skeptical oversight. This gives the Dems the highest chance of success. But that means that the Dems will have to vote for more money. They have will to go along with the President — and John McCain. And John McCain will be the GOP leader in the consensus oversight process of Iraq, the most important issue facing America.

That’s why the Democrats are trying to kill this policy in its bed:

I’m not sure that in my over 20 years of involvement in politics and media have I seen as disastrous a pre-launch of a major policy initiative as what the President will propose this week for Iraq.

So back to McCain. What’s the impact on him (or the rest of the GOP)? Hard to tell. But if the surge is blocked, then we will likely start pulling out. There’s simply no other option. And Iraq will become less of an issue. But terrorism will re-emerge as the major foreign policy issue in the election (helping Rudy Giuliani and McCain), along with a stronger Iran, problems with (Romney’s "family oriented") China, and international trade.

If the surge goes on, it will be because the Republican Party unified behind McCain’s position, but attempts to stick it on McCain will be much, much harder because it will have passed with many Democratic votes. And the base will say, "The country sent Dems to Washington to stop Bush and they kept collaborating."

Tags: , , , ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Who do you not want to be your nominee in 2008?

December 6, 2006 – 3:42 pm

National Journal did a CNN/Opinion Research Poll and asked this question: Who do you not want to run for President. The answers:

Republican % Democrat %
Bill Frist 51 John Kerry 51
Mitt Romney 50 Al Gore 43
Newt Gingrich 48 Barack Obama 38

This is interesting. As many people don’t want Bill Frist (why would anyone want him to run?) as don’t want Mitt Romney? I’m not surprised by Kerry.

I’m also intrigued by Obama. I still haven’t decided what I think  about Obama, but I will write something soon.

I don’t put too much stock in this because of the name ID issue. I don’t know what people know about these. Hopefully National Journal will give us more results.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Who likes the favorite sons….

November 28, 2006 – 12:42 pm

Favorite Sons and Daughters, 2008 from the most recent AEI Political Corner.

Q: Would make a good president . . . ?   Yes No
Arizona voters John McCain 48% 42%
Georgia voters Newt Gingrich 30 63
Illinois voters Barack Obama 64 29
Massachusetts voters Mitt Romney 31 65
Massachusetts voters John Kerry 25 71
New York voters Hillary Clinton 57 39
New York voters Rudy Giuliani 46 51

This is probably meaningless but fun. Amusing points:

  1. McCain is the highest of the GOPers in his home state, which is actually a red state, unlike the others.
  2. Obama is the highest of the Dems in his home state.
  3. Clinton beats Giuliani in NY.
  4. Romney beats Kerry in MA. Good for him. But Romney probably looses to McCain in his own state, so I wonder what that means…

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Broder on Dem calender shuffle

August 31, 2006 – 8:04 am

David Broder — a fellow University of Chicago alum — wrote a great article on the Dem calendar shuffle which I have written on here and here. First he points out the history of Dem calender rule-changes:

This way lies madness, and madness is what the Democrats have wrought. When they started tinkering with their rules after the 1968 election disaster, they unleashed a fierce competition among the states to be at the head of the line, where the contests have the greatest impact on weeding the field and crowning the eventual winner.

He also points out that the diversity argument is the kind of thing that leads to the Balkanization of the party that Democrats are often accused of:

This Democratic version of affirmative action leaves a lot to be desired. Unions are a major source of Democratic votes and money. Maybe Rhode Island should be rewarded for being a stronghold of union activity at a time when labor elsewhere is beleaguered. And gays vote Democratic; shouldn’t the states that are home to San Francisco and Key West be allowed to vote early? And if Jewish contributors keep the party solvent, shouldn’t New York be up there with the other pacesetters?

He uses the standard New Hampshire argument that they are uniquely qualified to do vet presidential candidates:

Historically, New Hampshire has fulfilled that responsibility. Voters there — in both parties and especially among the numerous independents who also vote in the primary — take their role seriously. They turn up at town meetings and they ask probing questions. So do the interviewers at local papers and broadcast stations. So do high school students.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Further sign of Dem shift to the left

August 28, 2006 – 7:27 pm

Sebastian Mallaby has a great article about Dems and Walmart in today’s WaPo. A killer quote:

The truth is that none of these Democrats can resist dumb economic populism. Even though we are not in a recession, and even though the presidential primaries are more than a year away, the DLC crowd is pandering shamelessly to the left of the party — perhaps in the knowledge that the grocery workers union, which launched the anti-Wal-Mart campaign, is strong in the key state of Iowa.

For a party that needs the votes of Wal-Mart’s customers, this is a questionable strategy. But there is more than politics at stake. According to a paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research by Jerry Hausman and Ephraim Leibtag, neither of whom received funding from Wal-Mart, big-box stores led by Wal-Mart reduce families’ food bills by one-fourth. Because Wal-Mart’s price-cutting also has a big impact on the non-food stuff it peddles, it saves U.S. consumers upward of $200 billion a year, making it a larger booster of family welfare than the federal government’s $33 billion food-stamp program.

We have commented about this shift in the Dem’s calendar change. We also think that Hotlineblog’s piece on Huckabee makes a great comparison piece to think about the pressures on the parties as they fight for the working class.

Tag:

By eye | Comments (0)