Cheap Date Conservatives

October 26, 2007 – 5:38 pm

Mickey Kaus doesn’t buy John McCain’s new position on immigration:

I’m continually amazed by the Cheap Date Conservatives I run into who think McCain has somehow convincingly changed on immigration.

How does this not apply to the entire field? This seems to reflect something about the base. What McCain is doing is pretty clear. He is cutting a deal. People need the fence for psychological rather than practical reasons. I cite the McCain quote from the Vanity Fair story:

"By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it."

McCain’s assessment of the efficacy of the fence was confirmed by a commentator and seeming conservative hero:

that’s a technical problem. In this day and age, I would not think you would have to use bricks and mortar to get that job done. But we ought to do everything that we can to get it done to the extent that we can

That was Fred Thompson, just months before entering the race. Never mind Mike Huckabee’s and Mitt Romney’s outrageous flip-floppery on this issue. Or Romney’s general flip-floppery.

I have trouble understanding Mickey Kaus’s amazement. You have Romney supporters running around saying that their candidate, whose position isn’t even recognizably pro-life, is the candidate for pro-lifers. You have Thompson doing a complete 180 (540?) in a matter of months on immigration. People are giving the candidates free passes on this stuff. Why is Kaus so surprised this time? At least McCain is honest about it.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Is red the new green?

October 26, 2007 – 12:48 pm

Monday night, I am going to the book Launch for the latest Newt Gingrich book. A Contract with the Earth. I think this is a big deal. Once Newt takes a position, it becomes part of the mainstream in the GOP. Not in the sense that people will start to agree with you. But instead that it becomes hard for people to belittle you, like my friend Rob Bluey does on global warming. I have argued that our current position on global warming may be politically unsustainable. When business goes green, the churches go green, and Newt goes green, I am beginning to see a movement.

Next week, I will be flying to-and-from Ottawa, Canada. Hopefully, I can read this and have a review up.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Questions that remain

October 24, 2007 – 9:14 pm

I have been thinking a lot about the race, and not writing so much. There are plenty of theories about what is going on and what is going to happen. Rather than make predictions, let me ask questions.

First, the most important question is probably going to be the relative dates of Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. Mitt Romney’s edge in Iowa means that he wants it as late as possible.  That guarantees him a win, while making it easier to slow the momentum of others.

Second, will Rudy Giuliani fall? There is a real possibility that the Alan Placa story, combined with the Bernie Kerik story next month could take a piece out of him. (It seems clear that the reason that the DNC got the Placa story on ABC was to refer to it next month when the Kerik trial is a live story) I have long thought that the danger to Rudy wasn’t his social liberalism. It is the broader character attacks, as they drive to his fundamental narrative. Note also, that, if this stuff really bites, it will almost certainly be done through earned media. No one has to shove in the knife. It wouldn’t be that way if the attack were social issues.

Third, if the Placa+Kerik story doesn’t kill Rudy, how well does he have to do before Florida to allow him to play in Florida and Feb. 5th?

Fourth, will John McCain seem plausible enough to benefit when/if Rudy is attacked? Early on, it was clear that McCain was the #2 for a large number of Rudy supporters. But for people to make that switch, McCain has to seem viable. I think that his "comeback" narrative is now strong enough to provide a magnet. At least in South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Michigan. If combined with an "electability" argument, like Ramesh’s, McCain’s game could still be on.

Fifth, is Fred Thompson really running for President? If so, doesn’t he have to go through Mitt Romney first? Isn’t that how he actually adds votes? When does it start? And where? It seems that he actually has the resources to rip Romney up.

Sixth, and related. Romney has a flip-flopping, character, and authenticity problem. But someone is going to have to actually buy gross rating points to move this message. Who? Rudy has the resources, but is probably saving them for later. And, in any case, both Mike Huckabee and Thompson are only relevant if Romney fails. The incentives are there.

Sixth, Huckabee’s performance at the Value Voters summit seems to have reshaped the moral conservative field. The contrast between his authenticity and Romney’s phoniness seems to have stopped Romney’s forward momentum among the interest group leaders here. But can he execute? Attacks on Romney’s credibility and religion only get so far without GRPs. But … if no one else really contests Iowa, is there any chance that Huckabee could out-perform Romney? I mean… if that were really the ballot choice (yeah, I know, it isn’t a ballot), doesn’t Huckabee win?

Seventh, can Huckabee, after doing well in Iowa, go to South Carolina and say "vote for me to give social conservatives a seat at the table"? Isn’t that his strategy? Or does he have a Michigan strategy, echoing economic populist themes like he did in Dearborn?

This is unsettled. It is plausible that the story out of Iowa is Huckabee. And the story out of New Hampshire is McCain. Michigan is a jump ball. Rudy could come in 2nd in all of these. Romney could be in first in all of these. There are just a lot of moving parts.

Tag:

By eye | Comments (3)

Housing crisis is hitting Republicans

October 24, 2007 – 2:55 pm

A friend of mine is a lobbyist. He was on the Hill and asked a bunch of GOP members what they thought. Their position was basically:

  • This is a blue state problem and the people affected are going to vote Democrat anyway
  • Moral Hazard arguments and federal gov’t should not intervene
  • taxpayers should not bail out speculators

This is delusional. Pew did a new study on expectations of future housing prices. Most Americans are still optimistic. But Republicans are more pessimistic. People with over $75k are more pessimistic. People in more expensive metropolitan areas are more pessimistic. Rich people have also seen housing prices fall more. Etc.

Get it? The "blue state problem" is probably referring to places like the NYC suburbs, where we lost Sue Kelly’s seat and Nancy Johnson’s seat. Or Jerry Weller’s and Deb Pryce’s open seats.  Or places like (the crook) Pombo’s seat. Or the AZ seats we lost. Or the CO seats we lost. Etc.

The GOP economic message works when people are optimistic about the future. Core GOP voters — which we are losing anyways — are pessimistic. You think they are going to feel good about us?

Of course, the housing market is still collapsing. (but they said it was all over!) From today’s report by the realtors:

US existing home sales fell 8.0 percent in September as a persistent housing slump continued to weigh on the property market and the world’s biggest economy, an industry group said Wednesday.

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) said in a monthly snapshot that sales of existing homes and apartments tumbled to a seasonally adjusted rate of 5.04 million units in September from 5.48 million in August.

The drop was worse than expected. Most economists had only expected sales to decline to around 5.25 million.

Stripping out apartment sales, sales fell to their lowest level since January 1998. …

Economists are concerned the housing slowdown could put a brake on US economic growth.

Put slightly differently: when the realtors are telling you that people are pessimistic about the housing market, grab your parachute.

This is bad. The GOP is willfully not having an answer. Why don’t they get it?

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

RNC punishes 5 states? Really?

October 22, 2007 – 5:30 pm

Ummm. Not so much. Why?

Well, first, listen to Mike Duncan’s lukewarm statement, as reported by Jonathan Martin:

Letters went out this morning warning New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan and Wyoming that they were "on notice," Duncan said in a conference call with reporters. 

Duncan did, though, emphasize that the move was a preliminary one.  ""We always believe in redemption," he said.

Second, the candidates aren’t taking it seriously:

Republicans have been far less aggressive about punishing states that are holding contests outside the window and Duncan sought  to drive that point home, noting that they were only taking away half the delegates of the five states as opposed to the Democrats who are stripping Michigan and Florida of all their delegates.

The rebuke from the party is also undercut by the candidates themselves.  Unlike the Democratic hopefuls who’ve pledged not to, each of the top GOP contenders is campaigning in Michigan and Florida. 

Third, there’s actually a process. Jonathan Martin’s update says:

Two clarifications.  First, the ultimate decision will be made at the Republican convention next September by the delegates there. …

More broadly, and I get at this above, few plugged-in Republicans think that these states will, in the end, be punished by losing half their delegates.   Whoever the nominee is won’t to, upon accepting the nomination, invite any undue headaches by ticking off such key general election states.

Let’s be super-anal-specific here. The RNC’s Executive Committee made a recommendation to the RNC. Which will have a meeting in January or …. February? Maybe after February 5th? When a nominee is basically clear. And that RNC meeting will be an opportunity for people to come together.

At that point the RNC is supposed to vote to recommend stripping states of delegates? After the nominee is picked, when there is absolutely no significance to the vote whatsoever? You are kidding me right? And then the Chair is going to go through with it? Even though it is irrelevant?

This is never going to happen. It won’t even get to the nominee.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)

McCain wins the debate

October 21, 2007 – 9:44 pm

Well, McCain’s lines dominated the debate:

  • Putin
  • Tied up
  • To Romney about "fooling people about your record."
  • "Lead"

I posted my notes, and I am having trouble finding other things that struck me deeply. Giuliani did well on Hillary’s spending and teachers.

Thompson was certainly more lively, and he had a nice closing.

My hunch is that McCain wins. We’ll see what people say.

On a deeper level, McCain clearly moved the ball. Thompson clearly moved the ball. Giuliani is fine treading water. He looks like he could be President.

I think it was a bad night for Romney. And Huckabee had some cute lines, but he needed to really rock tonight to drive through his straw poll victory from the Value Voters conference. And he didn’t.

And get the rest of these guys off the stage.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (3)

So far

October 21, 2007 – 9:16 pm

It seems that John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are on. MItt Romney is struggling (although Hugh Hewitt has probably already writing his post for Romney’s victory) and I am not inspired by Fred Thompson.

Mike Huckabee’s new Buchananite turn, which I predicted, is alarming me a lot.

It seems quite likely that the quotes of the night are going to be:

  • McCain’s "tied up" line
  • McCain’s slap to Romney about "fooling people about your record"
  • McCain’s line about leading.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Live blogging the debate

October 21, 2007 – 8:43 pm

They ask Romney about his liberalism and 1994. He dodges. He won’t talk about his past.

Thompson cracks jokes at Kennedy’s expense. He gets to talk about his details. Then he whacks at Rudy on abortion, immigration, and gun control.

Rudy says, "Fred has his problems too. Fred was the single biggest obstacle to tort reform in the US Senate."

They ask McCain about Romney and who is more conservative. McCain rattles off his record. "I lead. I didn’t manage for profit. I lead for patriotism."

Why is McCain wrong on "conning".  Romney talks about securing his borders (huh?) and other things.

They ask McCain about Romney’s lawyers/Iran comment. "Governor Romney, you’ve spent the last year trying to fool people about your record. I don’t want you to fool them about mine."

Romney gave another non-answer.

They ask Ron Paul about gay marriage. He talks about federalism and religion.  Are they teeing this up for Romney?

Yup. They want to help Romney. They ask him. Romney invokes the Catholic church and adoption. But didn’t he require the Catholic church to provide birth control and the abortion pill?

They ask Rudy why he supports gay marriage. And Rudy pushes back. He didn’t talk about kids.

They ask Thompson about lobbying for a pro-life group. He pushes back, but the delivery isn’t so hot.

They ask Tancredo about all the conservatives. "A nice think about being a book end." Then Fox cuts to him on the end… That was awesome. DId he say anything?

Now they talk to Duncan Hunter. And he hits it out of the ballpark about Democrats, Cuba, El Salvador, and Iraq. Nice.

Healthcare

Romney. Would you sign the plan that you passed? He didn’t answer the question, as usual. Why doesn’t Fox force him to answer.

Hunter pokes back at the mandates. Romney then changes the language on mandates.

Huckabee says, "we don’t have a health care system, not a health care maze. We don’t have a health care crisis. We have a health crisis." And drops his old hippies line again.

Education

Thompson on problems with NCLB. Some good lines, but … what? Need more fathers.

They ask Giuliani about the NYC schools. "There teachers … but I really care about the kids more." NICE. He repeated the line about education and choice being a civil rights issue.

Clinton

Romney and commander-in-chief. And he talks about China… Nice. He says that she’s never worked in the private sector. Wasn’t she a corporate lawyer? They re-ask the question. And Romney won’t say that she is not qualified to be CINC. He says he wouldn’t vote for her.

Rudy pokes her on phoniness on the Yankees. And the "million ideas. America can’t afford them all.  … America can’t afford you!" NICE! And Rudy gets to whack Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, two or three Florida comments, and polls.

McCain. Iraq contrast.. The question is whether the war will get in the way with Hillary. McCain gives the right answer in the abstract, but would GOPers rather beat Hillary or win the war? McCain makes, perhaps, the line of the debate when talking about the Woodstock earmark with "I wasn’t there. I was tied up at the time." As a number of people are saying, this guy looks like an adult.

Huckabee on reaching out to minorities. But Huckabee wouldn’t attend the Hispanic debate. "There’s nothing funny about Hillary Clinton being President." And he talks about taxes and Islamo-fascism. And he talks about the Law of the Sea. And he’s gone south on immigration.

Thompson. Was there substance other than "Hillary bad?"

Paul. Did he just run to the left of Hillary on the war.

I will ignore whatever Thompson just said. I already don’t remember it. Giuliani just said that we need private accounts. Fine but how?

Romney does say that he won’t cut benefits for poor people. He’s running for a general… If he gets there. Nice Huckabee joke.

Paul on monetary policy as a response to social security? There’s something correct but weird.

Duncan Hunter explains how protectionism will protect us from running out of money for Social Security? This guy is a clown. I don’t even know any socialists who believe that. Fox kicks back, and Hunter continues to demonstrate his ignorance by equating trade and federal account deficits.  Huh? And then Tancredo wants to solve it with illegal immigration. More clowniness.

Foreign Policy

McCain and Russia. "When I looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes, I saw three letters. A K, a G, and a B." AWESOME. And he lays most of the serious problems at Russia’s feet. The UN Security Council, Iran, etc. Good deal. China may be a threat, but Russia certainly is. And he talks about missile defense. It all happens. Duncan Hunter geeks out in response. Whatever.

Giuliani talks about expanding NATO and expanding democracy. An important discussion.

Thompson. For the first time tonight, I have really liked his answer and his style tonight when he talks about Iraq, Turkey, etc. And then I don’t remember enough about any of the statements of the other candidates on this. Nothing that interesting.

Paul. Who left the GOP? Paul argues that we need a Taftian policy. And the crowd is unhappy.

Giuliani and Iran. He says that a nuclear armed Iran is more dangerous than war with Iran. He has a nice comparison to

They rip into Thompson with a question. And he talks about his serious experience. And ends with a great line, "If a man can do all that and be lazy and do all that, I recommend it." But the follow up about the kids isn’t so strong.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Consequences of a December NH primary?

October 16, 2007 – 8:04 pm

There have been whispers for a while that there could be a December primary. Roger Simon now argues that it is increasingly likely that there could be a December 11th primary in New Hampshire.

On the Democratic side, that seems to favor Hillary Clinton. She is up some silly amount in NH. She is +20 in NH. A little momentum going into Iowa can’t hurt. This reduces the odds of a successful Barack Obama resurgence.

On the GOP side, this opens up the game much, much more. Mitt Romney was hoping to boomerang with Iowa. But, in RCP, Romney is only +4%. While his organization is either the best or second best. (behind John McCain)  Who finishes first may well come down to a crap shoot between McCain, Romney, and Rudy Giuliani.  It seems unlikely that Fred Thompson will be a first-tier competitor in New Hampshire. That means that he will be competing with, perhaps, Mike Huckabee for fourth.

Can Huckabee survive a 5th place finish? Could Thompson survive a 4th?

I have recommended that McCain and Giuliani skip Iowa. Is there similar advice for Thompson and Huckabee in New Hampshire?

What happens to Romney if he were to come in 2nd or 3rd?

If New Hampshire is first, do independents vote for Democrats? Less likely if Iowa comes first, and Clinton wins it. Then Obama might well drop out.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (3)

Beyond 2008: Redistricting

October 15, 2007 – 12:02 pm

John Fund wrote about the future of 20% of the US Economy and over 10% of the population:

Tony Quinn, co-editor of the California Target Book, a nonpartisan analysis of state politics, says that if Democrats retake the governorship after Mr. Schwarzenegger’s departure in 2010, it’s "pretty clear" that they would use their control of the Legislature to push for the mother of all gerrymanders. "Democrats will use their mapmaking power to try to achieve a two-thirds majority in both houses of the legislature, thus wiping out the ability of Republicans to influence budget and tax legislation, which require a supermajority to pass," he wrote in the Los Angeles Times.

The Dems might have the power to do this because of a failure to take up a non-partisan redistricting proposal. So the Gov. has to push it:

He argues the political climate will be different in June 2008 than it was in 2005. Back then less than 70% of Republicans supported the overly complex measure proposed by their own party’s governor. But today Mr. Schwarzenegger’s approval rating is 59%, 25 points higher than in 2005. The Legislature’s approval numbers have hovered around 30% throughout the last three years. At the same time, support for the general idea of taking away the power to draw districts from the legislature has remained popular with voters, who support the general idea by a 3-to-1 margin in most polls.

This failed in 2005 because the Dems spent $250m on fighting the Governor’s proposals. (The Chamber also screwed him. They didn’t want to spend the money) But they can try again. And they should. And Republicans should support this precedent. The rest of the country can’t afford to let California turn dark blue.

Several other states could benefit from this (from a Republican perspective). Illinois, where the Dems are likely to go after Rep. Mark Kirk. Probably New York. On the other hand, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida all have partisan gerrymanders that go the other way. It is a mess. But it is probably the right thing to do.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)