WSJ echoes me on housing and GOP

October 15, 2007 – 11:36 am

Haven’t I been saying this?

The housing crunch is most severe in some of the most hotly contested political battleground states, a trend that could spell trouble for Republicans next year.

Six of the 10 states with the highest foreclosure rates in the country last month are considered by leaders of both parties to be swing states. They include the two biggest prizes of the past two presidential campaigns: Florida, which came in No. 2 on the list, with one foreclosure filing for every 248 households in September; and Ohio, No. 7, with one foreclosure for every 319 households, according to a survey by RealtyTrac Inc., a California property-research company. …

"For better or worse, as the incumbent party, Republicans own the economy," ISI Group Inc., a stock brokerage that specializes in policy research, said in a recent report. "Therefore, falling home prices, particularly if they lead to broader economic woes, will hurt Republican prospects for maintaining the White House and picking up seats in Congress."

In the Republican presidential candidates’ first debate focused on economic issues last week, none raised housing concerns.

Why?

One reason for Republican silence may be that, for all the headlines about a housing crunch, the issue doesn’t rank high in national polls. In an early September Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, when people were asked to name two items that should be "the top priorities for President Bush to address," 7% cited "the home-mortgage and housing markets."

Elections are determined at the margins though. The margins in Presidential politics are margins in swing states. Housing is a big one of those.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Why the religious right hasn’t found a candidate

October 13, 2007 – 9:54 am

A number of people have asked me why I think that the religious right hasn’t found a candidate. The supposition is that if the religious right came around and supported someone like Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback, they could be the nominee. Here is my attempt to answer that question.

First, the process starts with natural selection. Only very recently has there been a solid case for Huckabee being the obvious candidate of the religious right. In Q1 and Q2 Brownback outraised Huckabee and was about tied in the polls. Until Ames, the argument for preferring Huckabee was hard to ground in solid facts. (Now it is a lot easier)

Second, I think that there is a degree of sectarianism. This has been at its most explicit in the whole absurd media debate about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. But really. Nearly everyone I know who is a strong Huckabee advocate is an evangelical Christian. Nearly everyone I know who is a strong Brownback advocate is a conservative Catholic. It was a great feat of the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition to get these people working together. If the leaders were to intervene in this fight, then they might threaten the foundation of their coalition. Furthermore, Brownback could have argued, Catholics are a swing vote, while Baptists are not. Many swing states are also Catholic states. (Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.) Not so far Baptists. (Note that JFK’s campaign viewed their candidate’s Catholicism as an asset in a general election. In a deep sense, being able to win a primary in a Baptist state, the example was West Virginia, was when the deluge broke in the 1960 Democratic primary) In other words, Brownback could have argued that picking him would expand the size of the coalition.

Third, the leaders of the movement have a clear hierarchy of preferences:

  1. Support the candidate who wins the White House. Call this the George W. Bush case. Might be the Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney case.
  2. Support the candidate who wins the primary but loses the general. Call this the Hillary Clinton case or the Mike Huckabee case. It may also be the Thompson or Mitt Romney case also.
  3. Oppose the candidate who wins the primary, but then be forced to support the candidate in the general. (But probably get no love from the White House if the candidate wins) Call this the John McCain case.
  4. Oppose the (GOP) candidate in the primary and the general who wins the White House. Call this the Rudy Giuliani case.

Clearly the last two are unacceptable to any interest group leader. They simply lose access when, eventually, their followers will, to some extent, rally around whoever is in the White House. The leader is marginalized over time.

The other two cases are the interesting parts. I don’t know anyone who thinks that Brownback and Huckabee could really win a general election, although that is shifting for Huckabee to some extent. Huckabee would face his own problems; in some sense, Mike Huckabee is to the Club for Growth what Rudy Giuliani is to James Dobson. So conservative Christian leaders are sitting down and asking themselves:

  1. Can Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney win the nomination?
  2. Can they win the general?

If the answer to (2) is "no", then the right strategy is to back whoever allows them to build the strongest organization. Perhaps you could call this the Bob Dole strategy? But if the answer to (2) is "yes", then they have to figure out which pony to pick, or, at least, which pony not to kill. And, again, there are reasons, in both candidates, for the followers not to follow. In the case of Mitt Romney, it is his religion. (note that I am not defending that, just saying that it is a reality) Increasingly, Fred Thompson has disappointed religious right leaders on gay marriage. And these are echoes of a past that is even more problematic for them.

So you get a hodgepodge. Some people pick the purists. These people seem to be state level family group type of people. Some people make compromises. For example, yesterday Gary Bauer endorsed Fred Thompson. (not the first time that Bauer has done this. He also endorsed McCain in 2000) A friend on the religious left but political center talked to Richard Land the other day about Thompson, and Land was not so happy with his earlier statements of such strong support. Others, like Lou Sheldon, pick Romney. (although, again, the word on the street is that Sheldon is getting some money. To quote a friend of Sheldon, "Lou doesn’t do anything if money isn’t involved.")

So, back to the original question. There are interest-group internal reasons for not picking a candidate. There are also questions of how the interest groups maintain power. These combine to make it very, very hard on interest group leaders. That’s just politics.

Tags: , , , , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Global warming and the GOP

October 12, 2007 – 9:14 am

I woke up this morning, and started checking my email. The first hint was a message from a Polish friend in Brussels. Al Gore had won the Nobel Peace Prize. My friend now thinks that Al Gore has a lock on the primary and general now. I responded that that was an over-reaction. But what is going to happen?

I don’t understand Democratic primary voters well enough to know what would happen in their primary. Basically, everyone would have to fold for him to have a chance, I would assume. But I don’t know.

I also wonder about the GOP primary. Will this create a backlash against the candidates who think that we need to do something about global warming, namely John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Sam Brownback?

On a broader level, I wonder where this issue is going in the national electorate. A bunch of consultants and think-tankers point out that no one really votes on global warming. But we are in a politics of narrative, not a politics of fact. The narrative that global warming denying gives us is that we are out of touch. It is another talking point in a long list that the Democrats have. When 60+% think that we are in a recession and Republican candidates talk about everything being rosy, something seems strange. When our electeds deny global warming, but 80% of NH Republicans say they would raise taxes to address the problem, something seems strange.

Last night I had coffee with my uncle. He is one of the founders of the What Would Jesus Drive movement. Today the National Association for Evangelicals — my uncle is the co-chair of their policy committee –, Bread for the World, the Micah Challenge, and a number of evangelical and mainline groups are meeting in DC to talk about a number of issues, but first on the agenda? Global warming. (Second is "torture" by the way) One of the most important swing votes right now is moderate evangelicals. And this issue (these issues? I might even throw in immigration for a trifecta) is moving on us. We need to start addressing it.

Back to my friends in Europe for a second. In February, I attended, representing the GOP, a conference of young leaders of center-right parties from around the world. All the Europeans said that this issue creeps up on you. That it is not a ballot issue, but a credibility issue. That taking a measured position had become no longer politically viable for them. The Aussies (the Liberal Party), the Canadians (the Conservative Party of Canada) and the Republicans, all said, "no no no…"

Since then the Australian Liberals and the Canadian Conservatives have switched positions, leaving the Republicans the only remaining major center-right party in the world that has not moved on this issue.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (6)

Housing hitting Republicans?

October 11, 2007 – 10:27 pm

The Foreign Policy blog has some interesting details about rich people losing their homes:

A good example of this is the greater Washington, D.C., area. One might think that subprime loans would be most popular in poorer areas of the District. And they’d be right. According to a study by the nonprofit Urban Institute, high-interests loans were indeed popular in low-income neighborhoods. However, they were much more popular in Fairfax County, which has a median income of $100,318—the highest in the country. Many homeowners there used subprime loans to upgrade to a larger house. In fact, these kinds of loans fueled the McMansion phenomenon.

When more wealthy homeowners start to lose their homes (and as Passport noted a few weeks back, the worst is yet to come), the confidence of U.S. investors will suffer greatly. This, in theory, will further slow global growth, as consumers will be less likely to spend.

More details also at the Journal.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Just babies, guns, and taxes? Or more?

October 11, 2007 – 7:32 pm

I’m going to get in big trouble for this.

My friend David Freddoso tried to define conservatism in relation to the Rudy Giuliani phenomenon with:

There is a long philosophical debate to be had over what makes a conservative, but conservatives in Washington have a rule of thumb for awarding the label to actual politicians: It’s the trinity of conservative issues: "Guns, Babies, and Taxes." My own minimum definition of a conservative officeholder or candidate is someone who is "good" on at least two of the three, and one of them has to be "Babies."

Except that JPod says, "it seems to leave out a few things, like, oh, national defense (unless you put that under "guns"). Not to mention crime." Liz Mair points out spending. Rep. Jeff Flake and Rep. Chris Cannon are liberals because they support a path to citizenship. (and a free market in labor, in addition to goods) So throw in immigration. John McCain’s first real apostasy was campaign finance reform. Most of his other major sins occurred after that. Fred Thompson is a liberal because he extends federalism (a conservative principle) to gay marriage. And Ramesh points out that, on the original 3 principles, Reagan was 0-3 for quite a while.

This is the Democrat-ization (that’s a big "D") of the conservative movement. That is, the transformation from the conservative movement from an organization around core of principles to a bunch of interest groups. This is the critical problem.

Because conservatism lost its coherence, it has also lost its brand.

It is a lot easier to have three litmus tests rather than 10. It is a lot easier to communicate 3 ideas than 10. In politics, less is more.

Erick Erickson says that the base is still focused on these:

We can certainly nuance here and there, and we can nit pick around the edges, but those are the three issues. You go to a Republican meeting in Bibb County, Georgia or East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana or Tipton County, Tennessee or Saline County, Illinois and those are three issues candidates must address.

But the base is not so happy right now. The party is angry because George Bush isn’t conservative enough. What does that mean? Taxes? Um, no. He cut those. A bunch. Babies? PBA. Judges. A huge number of executive orders. Probably not that. Guns? Well, he let the Assault Weapons Ban expire. Probably not the problem there. What are the problems? Spending. Immigration. Campaign finance reform. Etc.

When someone can count the conservative principles on one hand, I will know what it means to be conservative again. We aren’t there. We need new ideas. Some of that is a reorganization of our existing ideas. Some of it is new stuff. Time to start working.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (3)

Darren White announces for NM-1

October 10, 2007 – 12:27 pm

Candidate — Congress Party Total Percentage
PATRICIA A. MADRID DEMOCRAT 93,709 50.16%
HEATHER A. WILSON REPUBLICAN 93,105 49.84%
Candidate — Sheriff Party Total Percentage
JOSE E. CHAVEZ DEMOCRAT 69,781 36.92%
DARREN WHITE REPUBLICAN 119,201 63.08%
Candidate — Governor Party Total Percentage
BILL RICHARDSON and DIANE D. DENISH DEMOCRAT 130,994 68.00%
JOHN DENDAHL and SUE WILSON BEFFORT REPUBLICAN 61,647 32.00%

Great news. New Mexico sources say that Darren White, the Bernalillo County Sheriff is announcing for Congress in NM-1.

Darren is a very strong candidate. In 2006, he was re-elected with 63% of the vote. Check out the numbers. They are the Bernalillo County numbers. (Torrance County is also in the district and provided the margin for Wilson’s victory)

This is a recruiting coup. Go NRCC! Go Tom Cole!

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

I love the Economist

October 10, 2007 – 8:39 am

Who else could write this?

Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani looked like the main contenders tonight, talking about Hillary Clinton and scrapping at each other. But neither did much to chip away at the reservations Republicans have about them. Mr Giuliani, handed a question about third-party candidates, did not address the fact that he might face one himself. Mr Romney talked about checking in with his lawyers and looked, throughout, as if he was about to burst into uncontrollable chuckles.

Tag:

By eye | Comments (0)

Reflection on the debate

October 9, 2007 – 6:20 pm

If the test of a debate is memorable lines or gaffes, then Mitt Romney’s line about lawyers was a big problem. Marc Ambinder has the exact quote:

"We’re going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and didn’t need to do."

Dave Freddoso at NRO doesn’t buy it either. This speaks to his biggest weakness. Combine this with his line about his kids serving America. That’s a problem. At that point, Rich Lowry said, "Not very crisp. Not his greatest night."

On the other hand, Romney’s line about Fred… "Great cast and Fred Thompson comes in at the end," was quite good. As Patrick Ruffini notes, this was repeated on twitter a bunch.

If people were worried about Fred Thompson, then I think that he did pretty well. A couple of people suggested that he looked old. But the spin was, if he doesn’t fall on his face, he wins. And he didn’t. Does that mean he wins?

John McCain did pretty well. Someone is going to make fun of his squinching to hear.  It is also striking that everyone is saying that McCain is right.

In the end, I would say:

  • Giuliani was probably solid. Given that he is the front-runner, and didn’t botch, he is happy. Thompson may have moved the ball. Or he might have stopped the slide.
  • John McCain is probably happy. Since his narrative is survival, he moved the ball.
  • Fred Thompson is probably happy. He didn’t face plant, so he moved the ball.
  • Mitt Romney is probably less happy. I talked about these above.
  • I like Huckabee, but I don’t have great memories of him tonight.
  • The others…. Not so much.

No clear winner, but incremental progress for McCain and Giuliani. Thompson does what he has to. Romney struggles. Again.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

CNBC/WSJ Debate

October 9, 2007 – 4:42 pm

They start with Fred Thompson.

Thompson: No reason to believe in a recession. He rattles off the numbers. He cuts to long-term spending, which is right up his ally. They follow up and ask about the polling and the angst.

They switch to Romney and ask about foreclosure. 1/100-some. Romney responds. "Inexcusable that Michigan is suffering a one-state recession." Good line. Invest in technology and research. Fix schools. Etc. He gets in a great line about Granholm’s taxes.

Matthews asks Giuliani about private equity. Rudy responds that "the market is a wonderful thing." He gets his whack at Hillary. "Presidents have to work on the fundamentals." It is interesting that he throws in tort-reform as a basic economic issue.

Matthews asks Ron Paul about the Hedge Fund industry. Paul gets to talk about inflation and the working class.

Now they ask McCain about the income gaps. McCain responds about industrial jobs and health care. Whacks at S-CHIP. The smoking line doesn’t quite work though. But it does point out the absurdity of the funding mechanism for S-CHIP.
Mike Huckabee jokes that people want to spend money. He then talks up the Fair Tax. He makes a nice point about the underground economy. Then he pivots to talking about poor-people.

Duncan Hunter then makes Mike Huckabee look like a radical free-trader.

Thompson responds as a decent free-trade advocate.

Sam Brownback pledges not to raise taxes. Solid and easy. He pivots to a flat tax. Then he talks about spending. Brownback then gives a back slap to McCain. They really are buddies.

Tancredo makes the right point about earmarks and mandatory spending.

Mitt vs. Rudy on taxes.

Rudy talks about his tax cuts. 23 times and a 24% income tax cut.

Romney talks about his tax cuts and spending. And he bashes Rudy on the line-item veto.

Rudy crushes Romney on the response. Romney struggles. Rudy delivers a great line. Rudy did won that exchange.

Job losses and manufacturing.

They ask Thompson about people who lose jobs. He doesn’t say that much that is interesting.

Hunter then talks more about rules and China.

McCain talks about the new economy. "We know that the people have been left behind." He talks about the differences between health care between UAW and non-union plants. He talks about retraining. He then riffs on spending.

Trade

Romney says that he is a pro-trade guy… $9k/family richer because of trade. He talks about his business record.  He reminds the business groups that he would be their tool

Giuliani. He talks up trade more. But it did duck the question about foreign ownership.

They ask everyone about a Dubai company buying part of NASDAQ. Paul yes. Huckabee dodges and talks about tariff and tax systems. McCain yes. He then sounds like an adult on trade. Romney yes. "America can compete around the world." Thompson, yes. Hunter, no. Brownback, yes. Tancredo, no.

Taxes. Thompson. AMT. He gives a good riff on taxes. Phase out AMT. Short-term is to index for inflation.

Iraq

They ask Thompson about Iraq. He says that "this is the right policy." "Not have to leave with our tail between our legs."

They ask McCain about his criticism of Bush. He would have asked people to join the military, the Peace Corps, Americorps, etc.  Gives Rudy a back slap. Points out his Rumsfeld criticism.

They ask Ron Paul about "war for oil". Paul rejects that. So does Brownback. "I voted to go to war in Iraq to fight the War on Terrorism." Brownback plays up his partition plan and that meeting.

Congressional Authorization of an attack on Iran. This is a good question.

  • Romney: "Would you need Congressional approval?" He talks about other strategies and the Ahmedinejad thing in NYC. Romney makes a potentially colassal blunder. Marc Ambinder has the exact quote. "We’re going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and didn’t need to do." Dave Freddoso at NRO doesn’t buy it either.
  • Hunter: Maybe. On the path to building a nuclear device.
  • Paul: Yes. Need a declaration. "Just war propaganda. Continuing war propaganda." Big applause for that.
  • Huckabee: No-ish.
  • McCain: He qualifies the hypotheticals. He says that the minimum is consult. He suggests that we are closer to a conflict than people realize.
  • Thompson: Says "John has it right." Cites War Powers. Says that we should go to Congress to get political support, even if illegal.
  • Giuliani: Depends. He whacks at Ron Paul. Paul misses the right response, which is that we declared war on the Barbary Pirates. Rudy whacks Hillary and Iran.

Energy and Oil Independence

Rudy gives the generic answer…

Brownback talks about "energy secure." And says we have to chase it down. "Get more electricity involved in our car fleet." Supports ANWR and Florida drilling if it is environmentally sound.

Tancredo gives the generic answer.

McCain says that the energy companies should be using their profits to invest.

Huckabee is asked about ethanol. He says that national security is a good reason to subsidize ethanol.  Hmmmm. Huck then talks about renewables in general.

Thompson on ethanol. He repeats Huck.

They ask Romney about subsidizing farmers. He is for it. Of course, that’s not what he used to think. FLIP-FLOP.

How does the GOP win back the economy as an issue?

  • Paul: Overtaxed. Over-everything. Can’t be bailing out farmers and subsidies for ethanol.
  • Huckabee: Points to the restoration of confidence.
  • McCain: He talks about faith in the government. Good contrast with Huckabee, although the emphasis on the government is awkward.
  • Romney: Don’t be doom and gloom. "The future is going to be even brighter than the past." He talks about business and implementing health care legislation
  • Thompson: Tell people the truth.
  • Giuliani: He keeps going after Hillary. A good place for him to be.
  • Hunter: Save the economy by closing the borders.
  • Brownback: Be optimistic. And flat tax. "This place rocks."
  • Tancredo. Lemme guess. Immigration. Stop pandering.

Social Security. They ask Thompson what he would do about social security. He talks about indexing to wages. He talks about accounts. And he talks about growth.

Trade. They ask Tancredo about Romney’s comment about the Bush administration trade negotiators. Tancredo says that the agreements have been lousy. I more or less agree.

Health care. Romney talks about market dynamics in health care.

Are unions good for America?

  • Paul. People should be able to organize.
  • Huckabee. Unions will take a more prominent role as a response to income inequality. He bashes CEO and hedge fund salaries.
  • McCain. Unions have played a very important role. Advocates Right-to-Work.
  • Romney. Back slaps McCain. Some good, some bad. Praises the Carpenters.
  • Thompson. Unions are good. Same stuff.
  • Rudy. Grandma was a garment-worker.  "UAW reached a responsible pact."
  • Hunter. Praises the steelworkers. Aren’t they the worst?
  • Brownback. Can be abuses. His ma was a postal worker. DoL is documenting abuses.
  • Tancredo. Slams Brownback’s union mom. Brownback responds. "Don’t attack my mother." Awesome. "My mother is not an illegal immigrant."

GM and Ford. McCain. McCain points out that health care is a good bunch of the problem for companies like Ford and GM. "My dear and beloved Ronald Reagan. He must be spinning in his grave." Awesome.

Chrysler. Thompson. The government shouldn’t step in. The right answer is markets. Matthews pushes back. Thompson slams him, "That’s your opinion, Chris." Nice.

Internet stuff.

Giuliani. Don’t tax the internet. Police the internet. Don’t need a new organization.

McCain. Must stop internet pornography. Go after the money.

  • Huckabee S-CHIP. The issue on the S-CHIP bill was political posturing. Says Bush screwed up on the framing. Not certain about the veto. The political loss on the veto is huge. ‘I don’t trust the government, the insurance companies. I trust me."
  • Romney. Arab-American bias. We don’t discriminate. We are nice people.
  • Thompson. Dangers of a weak dollar. Will damage us internationally. Creditors. Helps our exports. Didn’t really answer the question.
  • Rudy. Too much owned by foreigners. How about we sell more things.
  • Brownback. Who would be the economic advisor? Greenspan’s thoughts. Brownback doesn’t have an answer.
  • McCain. Bernancke cut enough? McCain says "I don’t know." The problem hearing thing looks bad on him.
  • Paul. Won’t promise to support the party.
  • Tancredo. Won’t do lesser of too evils.
  • Brownback.  Will support the nominee. Nominee will be pro-growth and pro-life.
  • Hunter. Will also. Built on a respect for human beings. Sounds like
  • Giuliani. Will London replace New York as the financial capital? He is not answering the question. He is just praising the US. There are real problems. They give him a second bite at the apple. And he talks about corporate tax rates.
  • Romney. Same question? He addresses Sarbox. Says he would support people. His line about Thompson was good
  • Thompson. He says that the relationship with Canada is great. Gave a shout-out to Canadian oil
  • Huckabee. Airline issues. Cracks a joke. He talks about airlines "getting in the program." What is he talking about?
  • McCain on finding Bin Laden. Set up a new intel agency just for that.
  • Romney on the biggest threat. Sense of optimism. Good answer.
  • Brownback on the biggest threat. Breakdown of the family.
  • Giuliani on third-parties. Sure, whatever, next. Points out that education is the biggest problem.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Hillary’s pork: Crowdsourcing project for the GOP

October 9, 2007 – 3:11 pm

Yesterday, Kevin Hassett, an economist at AEI and a member of John McCain’s economics team, pointed out something that we forget. Hillary Clinton is a big ole porker:

Democrats have been so busy preparing the coronation of Hillary Clinton that they have failed to train a critical eye on her record.

When it comes to earmarks, an issue that voters responded to more than any other in the last election except for Iraq, her record is about as bad as it gets. If Dennis Hastert was the king of earmarks, Hillary Clinton was his queen. Republicans had their “bridge to nowhere.'’ Hillary has her knitting mill. …

The Clinton campaign refused to respond at all to requests that she identify her earmarks.

Here’s a project for diligent GOP and conservative activists:

  1. Identify the pork projects. How much taxpayer money does she spend on ridiculous things?
  2. Identify how the projects are being used politically. Which of her donors or allies are making money off of the projects?

We have the time to do the research. And the press believes that the Clintons are crooks. This will just be another fact after Norman Hsu, etc. If we get the facts, I think that these facts will get told on more than Fox.

Tags: , , , ,

By eye | Comments (0)