Lesson on French Economics

Something for Republicans to Feel Good about, Finally!

The monthly Reputation Index produced by OpinionAmerica was released and the GOP is actually making gains!

OpinionAmerica has weighed in on the PoliticsHome Reputation Tracker – the first poll assessing the reputations of all of America’s top politicians and political figures – and there have been some devastating moves for Democrats, a bit of a gain for Republicans, and more bad news for the House and Senate leaders.


In general, Democrats' numbers went down this month. Out of roughly 30 members of the Democratic party on the list, only one (David Paterson) made a small gain. This could be particularly worrisome for Democrats, because out of the 27 Republicans on the list, 17 had net gains this month.

Last Moderate Standing

Olympia Snowe in today's New York Times:

It is true that being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of “Survivor” — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe. But it is truly a dangerous signal that a Republican senator of nearly three decades no longer felt able to remain in the party.

Senator Specter indicated that his decision was based on the political situation in Pennsylvania, where he faced a tough primary battle. In my view, the political environment that has made it inhospitable for a moderate Republican in Pennsylvania is a microcosm of a deeper, more pervasive problem that places our party in jeopardy nationwide.

I have said that, without question, we cannot prevail as a party without conservatives. But it is equally certain we cannot prevail in the future without moderates.

[W]e should heed the words of President Ronald Reagan, who urged, “We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.” He continued, “As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.”

Republicans Lose in Chasing out Specter

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter switched his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning. "I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary. I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."

Paying the political price for his support of President Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan, Specter trailed former Congressman Pat Toomey 41 - 27 percent in a Republican primary for the 2010 Senate race, with 28 percent undecided, according to a Quinnipiac University poll at the end of March. In a move called a "decision [representing] the height of political self-preservation,” by Sen. John Cornyn. He went on to say, “[w]hile this presents a short-term disappointment, voters next year will have a clear choice to cast their ballots for a potentially unbridled Democrat super-majority versus the system of checks-and-balances that Americans deserve." The question is will a Pennsylvania electorate vote for a hard-line conservative after turning more and more blue over the past few election cycle?

The site has argued in the past why the Republicans need to hold on to moderates, even extreme ones like Specter. If you look at congressional records objectively you can see why. Democratic Sens. Nelson, Bayh and Lieberman have been given a lot of praise for their somewhat conservative stands over the years; and I would venture to guess the Republicans would be glad to have any of them switch parties and join the Republican ranks. In fact in 2008 many did lobby Lieberman to cross over. Ironically, Specter himself was quoted as being all for the Lieberman switch.

“I would like to see him vote with Republicans in September,” Specter said. “He’s practically there. That would have the consequence of giving us a Republican Senate.”

Now, if Republicans are so eager to celebrate centrist Democrats who agree with them some of the time, why are they so unwilling to hold onto centrist Republicans who agree with them most of the time? According to The Political Guide, since 1990, Arlen Specter has voted with the majority of his party 72.9% of the time and missed only 2.8% of the votes. In all likelihood PA is going to elect a Democrat in 2010 and the Republican party will miss out on those potential votes.

Believe me, I am no big fan of Specter and others like him who often cross the aisle and vote for things like the recent stimulus bill. However, I'd rather have them then lose a seat to the other side.

To Moderate or Not to Moderate...

seems to be the question asked of and by Republicans of late. The latest from John Fortier at Politico adds this to the conversation:

In 2010, Republicans can blend voters who are most libertarian and suspicious about the role of government with moderate voters worried about overreach and future large deficits. If things go badly for the Obama administration, Republicans could gain a substantial number of seats.

But a longer-term strategy for a governing majority will involve more compromises in party ideology and reaching out to non-Republican groups. For this outreach, throwing tea overboard will not craft a majority but may well scare off all but the true believers.

British conservatives spent years in the wilderness as Tony Blair and New Labor grabbed the center of British politics and conservatives did not change. Only in recent years, when David Cameron took the reins of the party and moved it more to the center, have conservatives become viable and even likely to win the next election. As the London Times’ Danny Finkelstein, a supporter of Cameronism, saw it, Tories had gone from being the competent and nasty party to the incompetent and nasty party. But even at the party’s nadir, true believers saw no value in moderation. The answer, according to Finkelstein and Cameron, was for Tories to become more tolerant, more optimistic and more centrist.

Second Thoughts

It was only a matter of time before many center-right and right-leaners, who, fed up with the Bush administration, decided to take the leap and vote for Obama started having second thoughts. Now we have data to back it up. From Politico (emphasis mine).

The GOP polling firm Public Opinion Strategies is offering a solution to Republican candidates as they seek to find a compelling message for the 2010 campaigns: Run to prevent Democrats from having unchecked power in Washington.

The firm released new poll data suggesting that voters would be receptive to such messaging. By a 22-point margin, voters said they preferred a candidate who would be a “check and balance” to President Obama over a candidate “who will help Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress” pass their agenda.

“Our latest national survey provides strong evidence that voters are concerned that they have given too much power to one political party and that Republicans can provide a check and balance,” wrote POS pollster Glen Bolger.

Battle for the GOP

Good post from Kristpher Lorelli at Race 4 2012 in which he discusses the tensions between libertarian-styled conservatives and the social conservative partners in the GOP.

States like New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Michigan used to be reliable Republican states for federal elections, but have been trending Democrat for the last 15 years. Many Republicans have dismissed these patterns as merely based on changes to voter demographics, but maybe it is not the voters who have changed, maybe it is the GOP that has changed? In local elections, voters in these states have proven to us that they are still willing to vote for pro-growth, small government, law and order Republican candidates.

If the Republican party cannot find a way to widen their tent and allow back libertarian-leaning voters, permanent minority status may be a term used to refer to the GOP for decades to come. The first step in this process is to ratchet down the rhetoric against these Republicans and develop and implement policies that play to their disdain of the federal government. Stop referring to them as liberal Republicans and RINO’s, but only as equal members of the political family. Only when this begins, can the party begin the long climb back to majority status.

Another interesting point he raises is the fact that only 24% of respondents claimed to be Republican in the latest PEW survey.

Can You Hear the Rebel Yell?

Interesting article over at Politico by Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin.

A quick tour through the week’s headlines suggests the Republican Party is beginning to come to terms with the last election and that consensus is emerging among GOP elites that the party needs to move away from discordant social issues.

There was Sen. John McCain's daughter and his campaign manager who last week demanded that their fellow Republicans embrace same-sex marriage. Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman – the most devoted modernizer among the party's 2012 hopefuls – won approving words from New York Times columnist Frank Rich for his call to downplay divisive values issues. The party’s top elected leaders in Congress, meanwhile, spooked by being attacked as the “party of no,” were recasting themselves as a constructive, respectful opposition to a popular president.

But outside Washington, the reality is very different. Rank-and-file Republicans remain, by all indications, staunchly conservative, and they appear to have no desire to moderate their views. GOP activists and operatives say they hear intense anger at the White House and at the party’s own leaders on familiar issues – taxes, homosexuality, and immigration. Within the party, conservative groups have grown stronger absent the emergence of any organized moderate faction.

Is there a split coming? Could social conservative form a third party? If so could either fi-cons or so-cons win?

Gore vs Gingrich

Former Veep Al Gore asked Congress to find the “moral courage” to push for a cap-and-trade system and endorsed a sweeping climate change proposal as “one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in the Congress.”

Gore’s testimony will be countered today by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is expected to criticize the proposal while detailing his own 38-point climate change plan called “green conservatism.”

From Gingrich's website:

Values of Green Conservatism

An American Solutions approach will develop a “green conservatism.”

1. Green conservatism favors clean air and clean water.
2. Green conservatism favors maximum biodiversity as a positive good.
3. Green conservatism favors minimizing carbon loading in the atmosphere as a positive public value.
4. Green conservatism is pro-science, pro-technology, and pro-innovation.
5. Green conservatism believes that green prosperity and green development are integral to the successful future of the human race.
6. Green conservatism believes that economic growth and environmental health are compatible in both the developed and developing world.
7. Green conservatism believes that we can realize more positive environmental outcomes faster by shifting tax code incentives and shifting market behavior than is possible from litigation and regulation.

As a key part of green prosperity and green development, there has to be a green energy strategy which is designed to enable the human race to make the transition from historic fossil fuels which dramatically improved the quality of life over the pre-industrial period to a new clean generation of energy which will: enable us in national security terms to be liberated from dependence on dangerous dictatorships; enable us in economic terms to be effective in worldwide competition; and enable us in environmental terms to provide for a much cleaner and healthier future.

Conflict of Interest?

Biden rated lower than Cheney

Just 51 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Vice President Biden. Cheney was at 58, and Al Gore was at 55 percent at similar points in their tenure. Numbers from the Pew Research Center's latest report. According to David Paul Kuhn:

The public's favorable take on Biden declined 12 percentage points since January. And don't blame the GOP. Democrats' favorable view fell from 87 to 76 percent. Independents' view fell from 58 to 46 percent.

TARP Returns

Senator John Thune has been mentioned as a possible candidate for President in 2012 so the following can certainly be seen in that light. Press release from Sen. Thune's office:

Senator John Thune today introduced a bill that would require the Secretary of the Treasury to use taxpayer funds returned by financial institutions under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to reduce the national debt. Several financial institutions that received TARP funding have returned or expressed an interest in returning billions in taxpayer funding.

"Congress is responsible for allocating taxpayer dollars and this legislation will prevent the Obama Administration from attempting to turn this money into a revolving slush fund," said Thune. "TARP was designed for the President to report back to Congress and seek approval for additional funding. This legislation ensures the returned funds are not reallocated by the administration for other priorities. Instead, this bill would work to reduce the size of the national debt in this country, something that seems to be a forgotten idea with the current Democrat leadership."

Recently, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner has indicated that he intends to spend these funds on additional TARP activities without Congressional approval.

Whether it is political gamesmanship or not it makes sense to me.

Earth Day Update

CQ Politics has a special Earth Day package featuring the state of various environmental initiatives on Capitol Hill. One highlight:

A sweeping energy bill under consideration by a House panel not only would try to curb global warming but would also create a federal program on adapting to climate changes that may be inevitable. The centerpiece of the bill would mandate an 83 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and require greater use of renewable-energy sources. Waxman and Edward J. Markey , D-Mass., chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, plan to begin marking up the bill later this month.

Interestingly the same articel goes on to imply that we really can't know when or if global warming will even affect us.

Detailed information is lacking on the potential effects of climate change in the United States, particularly at the regional level, many scientists say, and previous models of predicting such changes no longer apply.

The debate continues....

A Nation of Whiners & the Need for Principled Spending

Article highlights: Conservatives need to stop talking about being conservative, and need to start acting like it.

Let me state this right off the top: I am part of the problem with today's conservative movement. I drive a GM truck, shop at Big Box stores, own four computers; and I complain about the current state of our nation. When Senator Phil Gramm said we are a nation of whiners he was criticized for it- but in fact, he was right. We like to complain about big government & big business failures, but we seem to have little desire to actually make the changes in our own lives that would bring about some modest solutions. It is time to put our money where our mouth is.

• Conservatives across the country were quick to criticize the auto executives who came crawling to Washington to beg for funds, but how many of those same conservatives drive around in GM SUV's or minivans? When gas was $4 a gallon you couldn't find a Prius on the lot, now they are there in abundance.
  

• The media and the rest of us readily complain about the questionable methods of agribusiness every time a new salmonella scare comes up or mad cow disease rears it's crazy head, but how many of us shop at the local farmer's market where you can talk to the man who grows your food?

• Republican legislators have not been in short supply when it comes time to criticize the too-large-to-fail financial institutions that over-extended themselves to Olympian proportions. However, I am sure many of their constituents are the proud owners of McMansions, 2 new cars, plasma tvs, rider mowers and in ground pools purchased on the backs of easy credit and low equity.

There is a lot of talk, rightly so, about how the GOP and conservatives in general need to refine, remold and rebrand. A great place to start would be to align with the definition of the word conserve. Conserve: to keep in a safe or sound state; especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of.

Let's start with the auto industry. Yes, they failed to make small economical cars like Honda and Toyota did; but this was because the American consumer demanded bigger and bigger SUV's. This is the only country where a military assault vehicle could become every suburban dad's dream car. However, not every American car company failed to plan for the future. Ford alone has resisted taking government bail out cash, and could be the last one standing when all is said and done. It will be interesting to see- will Americans reward Ford for solid business practices? Will Ford out-sell GM over the coming year? If we were true to our principles it would. Conservatives need to move their political activism into the marketplace. We need to make principled decisions with our money. Everyone knows an oil dependent auto industry means uncomfortable ties to the Middle East, not to mention the destructive environmental factors. We need to start supporting, with our wallets, the kind of cars that will rid us of this burden.

The same idea of principled spending can be applied to our grocery bills. In Walter Goldschmidt’s classic 1940s study of California’s San Joaquin Valley, As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of Agribusiness, he compared areas dominated by large corporate farms with those still characterized by smaller, family farms.

In farming communities dominated by large corporate farms, nearby towns died off. Mechanization meant fewer local people were employed, and absentee ownership meant farm families themselves were no longer to be found. In these corporate-farm towns, the income earned in agriculture was drained off into larger cities to support distant enterprises, while in towns surrounded by family farms, the income circulated among local business establishments, generating jobs and community prosperity. Where family farms predominated, there were more local businesses, paved streets and sidewalks, schools, parks, churches, clubs, and newspapers,
better services, higher employment, and more civic participation.

While the clock can not be turned back to some dream of an idyllic 1940's farm town, recent studies confirm that Goldschmidt’s findings remain essentially valid. If conservatives made a concentrated effort to shop locally when it came to food we would be helping local economies, eating healthier, and taking away one of the left's talking points to the young. The GOP was the original party of environmental conservation; supporting a modified slow food movement would be economically sound, and politically expedient.

Finally, we need to conserve that most important of resources, our own money. While it is right and proper to admonish Washington for their “economic-crisis” induced spree, our politicians are just a microcosm of our ethos as a nation. We are all big over-spenders. If we want a conservative government, and by conservative we mean small, thrifty and cautious, then we need to lead by example. This is the hardest point of all. After years of cultural movement towards a credit fueled society we need to think more strategically about our money- in some sense it may be too late for some of us, but the next generation can be taught the values of disciplined and principled spending.

"Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger." - Teddy Roosevelt

Bipartisanship

The Hill asked each senators which member of the opposing party they most enjoyed working with. The senators were also asked, off the record about their least favorite.

MOST BIPARTISAN
DEMOCRATS
1. Edward Kennedy (Mass.)
2. Tom Carper (Del.)
3. Chris Dodd (Conn.)
4. (tied) Evan Bayh (Ind.)
4. (tied) Tom Harkin (Iowa)

REPUBLICANS
1. Susan Collins (Maine)
2. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
3. Orrin Hatch (Utah)
4. (tied) Richard Lugar (Ind.)
4. (tied) John McCain (Ariz.)

LEAST BIPARTISAN

DEMOCRATS
1. Patrick Leahy (Vt.)
2. Charles Schumer (N.Y.)
3. Chris Dodd (Conn.)
4. Dick Durbin (Ill.)
5. John Kerry (Mass.)

REPUBLICANS
1. Jim Bunning (Ky.)
2. David Vitter (La.)
3. Tom Coburn (Okla.)
4. Jim DeMint (S.C.)
5. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)

Selective Transparency

Is President Obama playing politics with the intelligence gathering agencies of the nation? It is a question worth asking as he has chosen to officially release CIA memos. Ronald Kessler makes the point here.

Aides to President Obama explained his decision to release Bush-era memos about CIA coercive interrogation methods as an effort to promote “transparency.”

If Obama were really interested in promoting transparency, he would have released CIA reports detailing the valuable leads obtained through the very same coercive interrogation techniques, which potentially saved the lives of tens of thousands of Americans.

If Obama were genuinely interested in transparency, he also would have released the minutes of Bush White House meetings briefing Nancy Pelosi and other leaders of the House and Senate on the interrogation techniques as they were being implemented.

Instead, Obama referred to the interrogations as a “dark and painful chapter in our history....”

...As former CIA Director Michael Hayden said in an April 17 Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, the effect of the release “will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.”

Doomed to Repeat History?

The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, by Amity Shlaes offers a fresh and controversial look at the role of government during financial crises. From Book List:

Its duration and depth made the Depression "Great," and Shlaes, a prominent conservative economics journalist, considers why a decade of government intervention ameliorated but never tamed it. With vitality uncommon for an economics history, Shlaes chronicles the projects of Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt as well as these projects' effect on those who paid for them. Reminding readers that the reputedly do-nothing Hoover pulled hard on the fiscal levers (raising tariffs, increasing government spending), Shlaes nevertheless emphasizes that his enthusiasm for intervention paled against the ebullient FDR's glee in experimentation. She focuses closely on the influence of his fabled Brain Trust, her narrative shifting among Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and other prominent New Dealers. Businesses that litigated their resistance to New Deal regulations attract Shlaes' attention, as do individuals who coped with the despair of the 1930s through self-help, such as Alcoholics Anonymous cofounder Bill Wilson. The book culminates in the rise of Wendell Willkie, and Shlaes' accent on personalities is an appealing avenue into her skeptical critique of the New Deal.

According to Politico Republicans on Capital Hill are considering it required reading for House members.

Obama's Attempt at Fiscal Responsiblity

President Obama plans to order his Cabinet to identify a combined $100 million in budget cuts over the next 90 days. From Greg Mankiw's Blog, which I highly recommend.

To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had be cut? By $3 over the course of the year--approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.

Lets All Take a Deep Breath

Benjamin Sarlin has a good post over at the Daily Beast on the far rights possible Obama derangement syndrome.

"What the hell is going on at Fox News?" wrote David Frum, the former Bush official and conservative writer, in a recent column. He added, "There’s always been a market for this junk of course. Once that market was reached via mimeographed newsletters. Now it’s being tapped by Fox News."

Even Fox's own Shepard Smith seems to be uncomfortable with the new trend, frequently mocking Beck on live TV and referring to his show as a "fear chamber."

I enjoy a good rant as much as the next guy, but there is a time and place. Too much of this sort of rhetoric only undermines the true conservative message.

The Truth Behind Obama's Approval Numbers

Kellyanne Conway has an interesting piece over at Human Events on why the President's approval numbers do not present the whole picture when it comes to how the nation feels about his administration.

Approval ratings for the person should not be confused with approval ratings for the person’s policies. President Obama’s approval ratings tend to be about 15-20 points higher than popular support for some of his policies. For example, the latest Newsweek figures give the new POTUS a 61% approval rating, but in the same poll, less than one-half of Americans offer their support to the way he is handling the economy (48%), taxes (48%), and the federal budget deficit (42%).

Casinos are not the Answer to a Recession

As states all across the nation struggle with budget shortfalls, one solution keeps popping back into focus: legalizing casino gambling. Formerly puritan New England is not immune to the siren call of neon- Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has repeatedly tried to move forward with plans for two resort style casinos in the Bay State. Now some Democratic state senators are picking up the issue as well. While on first blush casinos may seem like a ready-made answer to budget woes, upon closer inspection institutionalized gambling will hurt, not help the economy.


There are two significant costs that are associated with large-scale casino gambling; one is a humanitarian cost, the other purely economic. Both are consequential deterrents and yet both seem to be little understood by the voting public. Gambling addiction is not a myth, and in fact it is a very serious problem wherever casinos have opened. Governor Patrick's casino plan plainly admits that 1 out of every 20 people (5%) would become a problem gambler as a result of his initiative. That's 250,000 people, not including the family members of these addicts who will also suffer. Unfortunately, while problem gamblers make a lot of money for the gambling industry, their addiction leads to child neglect, crime, distressed families and bankruptcy.


In humanitarian terms casinos lead to a very real drop in the quality of life for effected citizens. Gambling invariably brings with it a number of less attractive activities such as petty crime, theft, alcoholism, poverty and prostitution among them. What does it say when the national leader of the casino industry lobby, Frank Fahrenkopf, said he'd oppose a casino where he lived? If he doesn't want one in his home town why should anyone else. These are large-scale public nuisances that create far more problems than any purported benefits they could bring to state coffers. In fact, the monetary benefits of casinos are also seriously suspect.


First and foremost, the evidence does not show that gambling solves any fiscal problems. To the contrary not one state in the country has ever solved its budget problems through the growth of casino gambling. Even New Jersey, with its 11 casinos, had to shut down its state government in 2006 due to a budget crisis, and this was well before the current recession. The Boston Business Journal- one of the states most pro-business publications- has repeated warned against the negative economic impact of resort casinos in New England. Mainly because casinos lower a region's standard of living by attracting lots of low wage jobs. Additionally, the Patrick plan's proposed numbers simply do not make sense. The revenue estimates do not account for the fact that New Hampshire would put two casinos right on the state border and Rhode Island would also expand its slot machine locations into full scale casinos in response to new large scale facilities in Massachusetts. One can almost envision an arms race for dollars going on. And while normally competition is good for business, in this case it would only escalate all the associated negatives.


However, it gets worse. Not only do casinos not bring in the promised funds to allow states to provide necessary services to citizens, they also act as a de facto tax on the lowest wage earners. Research has shown that the poorest households spent 11 percent of their income on gambling, compared with the highest earners who spent less than 1 percent. In Minnesota 52 percent of people who filed for bankruptcy mentioned gambling as a major reason to file. Does it make any sense to raise taxes on the most vulnerable in society? Even if the humanitarian costs doesn't bother you, the economic one should. When the poorest among us fall, it is the rest of the tax paying public who must act as the security net. Casinos cost everyone more of their hard earned money.


Rather than states looking for new streams of revenue to make up for budget shortfalls perhaps they could take a page from the common American household and simply tighten their collective belts. In Massachusetts' case, over $12 billion in waste was reported on as recently as last year. Clearly there are more humanitarian and more economically sound ways of going about dealing with the effects of this recession on states' budgets. Let's hope saner minds prevail when it comes to casinos.

Romney #1?

In Chris Cillizza's Washington Post blog, The Fix, he has repeated put Romney at the top of the list when it comes to Republicans to watch.

The former Massachusetts governor is the complete package. A tremendous fundraiser, he also has the business credentials that allow him to speak intelligently and forcefully about the economy -- the only issue most Americans care about right now. Romney will move to seize the high ground (from a policy perspective) on health care within the party over the coming months and is likely to be Obama's leading critic when Congress takes up the legislation in the fall. Romney's Achilles heel: he is still a little too programmatic and stiff. He needs to find the common touch if he wants to stand against Obama in November 2012.

Later, comparing the 2012 potentials fundraising abilities he has further praise.

Like him or hate him, you have got to give the former Massachusetts governor his due — he can raise money with the best of them. Romney collected $300,000 for his Free and Strong America PAC in March, bringing his total fundraising for the organization to more than $870,000 for the year. Romney will, without doubt, set the pace for the 2012 Republican presidential field — the standard by which all cash-collection for GOPers will be measured.

It will be interesting to see if Mitt can soften his image enough to have appeal beyond the white collar set. Here's hoping, as he could be the best shot Republicans have in unseating Obama.

MA Gambling with the Future

Gambling can attract a variety of social ills that damage society. Gambling can become a compulsive habit, ruining the lives of people who run up huge debts or gamble away their personal or family income and savings. Studies suggest anywhere from 1 to 5 percent of the adult population can be considered “problem gamblers,” and society must pay at least a part of the resulting costs related to lost productivity, psychological counseling, and other services. Now Democrats in Massachusetts want to instill this "working man tax" on us all.

More Bad news For CT Democrats

I have written before about Chris Dodd's struggles and how 2010 could be a real opportunity for a well funded moderate Republican. Now there is this from the Connecticut Post:

U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd appears to have looked everywhere but his home state to fuel what pundits anticipate will be one of the most hotly contested races in the nation in 2010.

The five-term incumbent reported raising just $4,250 from five Connecticut residents during the first three months of the year while raking in $604,745 from nearly 400 individuals living outside the state.

While incumbents often turn to special interests for early campaign fundraising, Dodd's out-of-state total seems unusually high and comes at a time when he has been plagued by poor approval ratings among state voters.

Youth & Technology Deficit

Article highlights: Republicans need to focus on issues that attract younger voters, and they need a more dynamic web presence to be successful in 2012.

According to a new study by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project 55% of adults used the Internet as their goto source for campaign & candidate information. Additionally the study found that by a 2-to-1 ratio, Obama's online supporters were more engaged than those of the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. Are there understandable reasons for this? Is this something we, as conservatives, can change? the answer to both of these questions is yes.

First, let's discuss the reasons. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, if you are not liberal when you are young you have no heart; if you are not conservative in middle age you have no head. The under 40 crowd was for Obama this past cycle and Internet use is much stronger among the younger population. Therefore it makes perfect sense that Obama would have a much stronger following online. Aside from the basic demographics, the McCain team simply did not run a strong Internet campagin- it was a 2004 interface trying to make it in 2008.

While there are understandable reasons why liberals owned the net in 2008, there is every reason to think conservatives can catch up. We have to keep in mind it was only as far back as 2004 when the Republicans were the party of the Internet. So, what should we do? First and foremost the conservative message needs to start targeting the younger crowd, and there are ways to do this without abandoning any core conservative principles. It is a simple matter of focus. Hard core social issues work to the traditional base of the party, but they often turn off younger voters who are more libertarian in their social views. However, the under 40 crowd cares a lot about the environment and their own futures in a rapidly evolving economy. These are both areas that are inherently in the conservatives' ballpark. What is more conservative than environmental conservation and the growing of a strong domestic economy? Therefore a more vocal and public focus on these issues would attract younger adults who would vote for a strong pro-environment, pro-economy message, even if they might not agree with every social policy a traditional Republican would support.

If conservatives could push a truly revolutionary energy policy, one that was market driven, but also forward looking, they could speak directly to this demographic. We don't have to look far for a blueprint, the Pickens Plan or some variant of it would work well.

There are several pillars to the Pickens Plan:

• Create millions of new jobs by building out the capacity to generate up to 22 percent of our electricity from wind. And adding to that with additional solar capacity;
• Building a 21st century backbone electrical grid;
• Providing incentives for homeowners and the owners of commercial buildings to upgrade their insulation and other energy saving options; and
• Using America's natural gas to replace imported oil as a transportation fuel.

Aside from creating policy initiatives that would appeal to younger voters the Republican Party also needs to make a more concerted effort to seek out and recruit those on the Internet frontier. By the time 2012 rolls around Twitter will be today's MySpace- we need people who recognize that and are on the lookout for the newest tools available.

In the next election cycle we can assume an even greater percentage of voters will rely on the web for their news and political engagement. If conservative in general, and the Republican Party in particular, want to see a large portion of that traffic directed towards their message, they need two things: a stronger appeal to youth voters who drive the Internet, and a more dynamic and forward-thinking team devoted to developing a real online presence to rival what we know will be a large Obama rollout.

Critiques from the Right and from the Left

Not everyone approves of the current rescue being orchestrated by the Obama administration. The following 14 economists, bloggers, politicians and businesspeople of all political persuasions have become the most vocal critics of President Obama's handling of the economy.
Read the full article here.

Tea Parties

Cornyn Supports Specter

Guess I am not the only one who reasons Specter as the best shot at holding PA. Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, issued his firm support of Sen. Arlen Specter today.

"As I survey the political landscape of the upcoming 2010 elections, it's clear we need more candidates that fit their states," Cornyn wrote. "While I doubt Arlen could win an election in my home state of Texas, I am certain that I could not get elected in Pennsylvania. I believe that Senator Specter is our best bet to keep this Senate seat in the GOP column. A vote for Arlen Specter is a vote for denying Harry Reid and the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate."

Republicans Closing the Gap

A new trend from Rasmussen?

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows U.S. voters trust the Democratic party over Republicans on the top issue of the economy by just a three-point margin this month, 45% to 42%.

It is still too early to determine whether voters are trending away from the economic initiatives of President Obama and congressional Democrats, but this is the closest the two parties have been on the issue of the economy since the first week of last September.

Arlen Specter vs Pat Toomey: A Reality Check

Arlen Specter, who is facing a threat from the right in next year's primary, recently launched a preemptive strike against former Club for Growth president Pat Toomey with a television ad that attacks his likely opponent for ties his to Wall Street. A recent Quinnipiac poll found Specter trailing Toomey by 14 points among Republican primary voters, 41 percent to 27 percent. Toomey came within 17,000 votes of beating Specter in the 2004 Republican primary, and the state's Republican Party has only gotten more conservative in the intervening two years. However, there is a problem.

On the one hand, a staunch conservative like Toomey should sound great to the Republican base; on the other hand his chances of winning a general election against a well-funded Democrat are questionable at best. There is a reason Specter has always been a centrist (some would say leftist) Republican- that is what Pennsylvania will vote for.

It is interesting to note how hard conservatives have pulled for Norm Coleman in Minnesota, who actually scores less conservative on the The Poole-Rosenthal Conservative Rankings than Specter does. Yet those same conservatives can't wait to oust Specter. While I am the first to admit that he was on the wrong side of the stimulus bill with Snowe and Collins, I am not ready to hand Democrats another senate seat on principle. Specter does have more conservative credentials than any Democrat replacement would. To whit:

• He supports personal accounts for Social Security
• He voted for Alito and Roberts
• He was given a 65% by the NTU, which is a hell of a lot more than we’d get from a Democrat
• He voted to repeal the AMT
• He voted against raising the minimum wage
• He voted yes on building a fence across the Southern border
• He voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act
• He was given an 81% rating by the Christian Coalition in 2003
• He supports drilling in ANWR
• He voted for school vouchers in DC
• He voted against withdrawal from Iraq within 9 months in 2008

Is Arlen Specter my first choice to be a Republican Senator? No. But I do want the party to think long and hard about whether it can win with a more conservative candidate in a state that trends to the left.

Are There Really 46 Million Uninsured? Depends.

For an eye-opening analysis of the real situation with health care check out Keith Hennessey's recent article.

When you hear “46 million uninsured,” or “1 in 6 Americans don’t have health insurance,” remember that this is technically correct but misleading. The more important question is, “How many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers?”

America's Recession?

President Obama, speaking at the G-20 meetings, stated that "the reckless speculation of bankers ... has now fueled a global economic downturn."

He was positing a popular myth which blames America for the world's current economic woes. However, as this graphic from the NY Post shows, much of the world is in much worse shape than the U.S., and the companion article goes on to say how most of the European downturn started before the Fall of '08 when the U.S. bubble burst.

Frightening Statistic of the Day.

From Rasmussen

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

One does have to wonder how much the current economic situation colors these results. Still , with all the talk in the conservative blogoshere about America's march towards European Socialism it is interesting to see that this is not necessarily scary to a lot of Americans. Maybe conservatives should stop framing the criticism this way. Maybe we should start boosting the positives of a free market economy rather than continually accusing the left of socialism.

Drowning in Debt

Hat tip to Cool Cal at Red Mass for this post. No explanation needed.

Didn't They See the Terminator Movies?

From USA Today- The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.

John Holdren told the Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea.

I am not one of those conservatives who automatically discounts all global warming theories. From my layman's perspective the science is split as to what is happening in terms of climate. In general I believe that conservation, protection of natural resources and preservation of open space should be a top priority. I do think we should account for, and deal with the reasons for climate change through the development of practical climate solutions that create economic opportunities and are aimed at reducing greenhouse gasses. However, I do not subscribe to the world-is-ending "doomsdayism" of the Al Gore crowd.

All that said- blocking out the sun's rays sounds a bit too much like playing with fire for me.

What Transparency?

So much for transparency, from The Hill-

Under the new rule, touted by House Democrats and echoed by President Obama as a move toward a more open system of earmarking, members submitting spending requests for 2010 to the Appropriations Committee are required to create an active link on their webpages giving the details.

Scores of House members are hiding their earmark requests in obscure corners of their official websites — sticking to the letter of their new rule while shunning its spirit.

Its Obama's Economy Now

I'll start by stating upfront that I am not an economist, nor do I hold aspirations to become one. My interest in economics lies where most American's does- my wallet; and over the past few months we have all seen the size of our collective wallets shrink. President Obama was elected largely due to the financial crisis and the hope that a Democrat would do what clearly a Republican hadn't. Partisanship aside, it seems an appropriate time to start assessing how Obama is doing. Unfortunately a quick scan of prominent economists doesn't help much.

In the 1990s, American economists roamed the world preaching the virtues of fiscal restraint, the rule of law, free trade, and privatization. Today, those four policy pillars, once known as the Washington Consensus, are abandoned in the city that gave that consensus its name. These policies were never commandments from Mount Sinai, but they are important ingredients of long-run economic success. In a recession, putting today's needs ahead of tomorrow's prosperity is understandable, but even in bleak times, doing too much can be worse than doing too little.....

For our children to face this debt, they will need free trade, private ownership, and respect for private property. Eliminating fiscal restraint during a recession is understandable. Eliminating all four pillars of sound economic policy imposes too much of a cost on tomorrow for too little benefit today. - Harvard Professor Edward L. Glaeser in th Boston Globe.

Then there is a new academic paper by Harvard's Joshua Coval and Erik Stafford and Princeton's Jakub Jurek where they state among other things that,

* Many banks are now insolvent. "...many major US banks are now legitimately insolvent. This insolvency can no longer be viewed as an artifact of bank assets being marked to artificially depressed prices coming out of an illiquid market. It means that bank assets are being fairly priced at valuations that sum to less than bank liabilities."

* Supporting markets in toxic assets has no purpose other than transfering money from taxpayers to banks. "...any taxpayer dollars allocated to supporting these markets will simply transfer wealth to the current owners of these securities."

* We're making it worse. "...policies that attempt to prevent a widespread mark-down in the value of credit-sensitive assets are likely to only delay – and perhaps even worsen – the day of reckoning."

In short, the government cannot save the banks by improving liquidity or changing mark to market rules because the problem isn't illiquidity or accounting. The problem is that highly leveraged financial firms own assets that are worth far less than they thought they would be, and the firms are insolvent as a result. This is why the latest bailout plans secretly give huge subsidies to banks--because the only way to keep the insolvent zombies afloat is to transfer billions of dollars to banks, bank stockholders, and bank creditors. The alternative--allowing the insolvent banks to fail, seizing the assets, wiping our shareholders, giving bond holders a serious haircut--is still not on the official agenda.

And lastly we have Paul Krugman who in his NY Times column and his blog, Conscience of a Liberal, regularly criticizes the Obamaites for trying to prop up a financial system that he regards as essentially a dead man walking.

What is interesting, and frightening, about the above examples is that they are all critiques from the left. Ivy League professors from the northeast can't be accused of simply Obama-bashing. In fact many of them, Krugman in particular, were very pro-Obama during the campaign season. Therefore their harsh words on the economy and the president's handling of it are quite serious indeed.

Now what is a layman to make of all this? Over the past six months, the U.S. has spent trillions of dollars to help stabilize companies and restart stalled credit markets. It's now the proud co-owner of some of the biggest American firms, such as auto companies, banks and an insurance giant. Now what if it doesn't work?

While as a conservative I would love to stand up and say "I told you so," I am more concerned that the system as a whole will become so broken we can't fix it.

Levels of Socialism

From Chris Bowers over at Open Left:
Levels of socialism in G-20 nations, plus selected other economies
Cuba: 81.4%*
France: 61.1%
Sweden: 58.1%*
Italy: 55.3%
Netherlands: 54.7%
Germany: 48.8%
Canada: 48.2%
Spain: 47.3%
United States: 44.7% (2009)
United Kingdom: 42.1% (2009)
Australia: 43.6%
Saudi Arabia: 40.4%
Turkey: 39.1%
United States: 35.5% (2007)
Indonesia: 33.2%
Japan: 30.9%
South Korea: 29.3%
Mexico: 26.7%
China: 22.0%*
Russia: 20.9%
India: 20.4%
Brazil: 17.3%
That is a pretty dramatic jump for the U.S. in 2 years. While I realize these numbers reflect the enormous bailout- still- it gives you something to think about.

The Partisan Divide

"The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook."- then candidate Barack Obama, at his convention speech. Now we have this from the Pew Research Center.

Partisan Gap in Obama Job Approval Widest in Modern Era. For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades. The 61-point partisan gap in opinions about Obama's job performance is the result of a combination of high Democratic ratings for the president -- 88% job approval among Democrats -- and relatively low approval ratings among Republicans (27%).

The Poole-Rosenthal Conservative Rankings

The Poole-Rosenthal rankings, which most consider the leading measure of a congressman's relative ideology have come out. Some highlights-

The 5 most liberal Republican Senators:

Snowe- Collins- Smith- Coleman- Specter

The 5 most conservative Democratic Senators:

Bayh- Nelson- Landrieu- Carper-

Consevatives Need Rockefeller Republicans

*Note to my hardcore conservative friends....please stay with me until the end before you decide to throw things at your computer screen.


If Republicans, and conservatives ever hope to regain their position of power in Washington they are going to have to come to terms with Rockefeller Republicans, RINOS, moderates, centrists etc. While they may not agree on everything, if they take a serious look, issue by issue, most will find that the so-called moderates are on board with conservatives on the weightiest topics of the day. In a nation essentially split between two competing ideologies, it makes no sense to crowd out all but the truest of true believers. If the GOP wants to become a majority party it needs to embrace all factions, even if only as the lesser of two evils.


The United States is always being pulled in two divergent directions. On the one hand there is a committed base of true conservatives who believe in a very limited federal government, low taxes and muscular foreign policy. On the other hand there is a base, no less committed, of liberals who believe that government offers the best hope for a just society and therefore a large federal government, complete with all that entails, is an objective good. These two sides are never going to "convert" each other. That would be like an atheist convincing an evangelical that there is no god- the two sides will never agree. (While I am sure there will be fringe cases of conversion, these are the exceptions that prove the rule.) Now neither side is unAmerican, evil, or stupid- they simply have drastically different ideas for what America should be. I for one am solidly in the conservative's camp, but that does not mean I think every word that leaves a liberal's mouth is inherently wrong; and therein lies the problem. I belong to that vast swath of citizens in the middle who are not "true believers" on either side, but who must find their way through the wilderness that is centrist America. Thankfully, the country is still "center right" so there is real opportunity there.


If you talk to a large number of average, everyday people you will find they do not fit into the ideological boxes that many political activists like to put them in. There are such things as pro-life liberals and environmentalist conservatives. Talk to enough people and you will see evangelicals who think the government should offer universal health care, and left-leaning teachers who think school choice is the best option to fix schools. This is where the political fight is. How can Republicans make a convincing case to this vast and fertile middle ground in America?


Let's take New England as a case study. There used to be a vibrant Republican base and community there. However over the past half century the Republican message has narrowed to the point where the traditionally moderate branch of the party that had thrived there is all but gone. In the vacuum left by the conservatives, liberals were more than happy to step in. In its place Democrats have been allowed to virtually indoctrinate citizens of the North East in liberal philosophy. So much so that now instead of a moderate Republican like Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., Massachusetts is represented by the ultra-left Teddy Kennedy. Over the years voters have gotten comfortable with the Democratic party, to the point where a Republican has a hard time getting airtime each election cycle.


Today New England is left with only Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to represent the Republicans. I know there are plenty of conservatives who consider these two women to be Republicans in name only (RINOS). However, if they were to be defeated, who would be most likely to take their place? A Glenn Beck or an Al Franken? After 50 years of liberal indoctrination New England isn't going to turn into Sean Hannity's key demographic over night. However, the North East is an area that tends to be sympathetic to fiscally conservative candidates (Mitt Romney, Bill Weld) even though it is socially liberal. There is some common ground with the overall conservative movement there- if the GOP is willing to have a bigger tent.


So what should conservatives and the GOP do with this region? They should look for the lowest hanging fruit and try to install some moderate "Rockefeller Republicans" in New England. Over time people will get used to voting Republican, and the overall image of conservatives will change. In a region such as this, prejudices have built up over decades and it will take time to reverse the damage culturally. Right now there is a great opportunity to start this process with the implosion of CT Senator Chris Dodd. One can easily see a moderate winning this seat in two years. And four years after that maybe Lieberman retires and the chance of gaining another seat will open up. Over time the party can rebuild its image to the point where there is once again a vibrant moderate wing of the party with its base in New England.

Conservatives need to ask themselves. Do they want a minority party of ultra conservatives to act as a gadfly to the liberal left? Or, do they want to be a majority party that has some moderates on the wings that need to occasionally be placated? Both choices can be seen as valid, but only one will help America chart a more conservative course in the years ahead.

So much for the Blue Dogs

So much for fiscal responsibility. I wrote earlier on how conservatives best bet in this new Democratically controlled congress might be to rely on moderate Dems like the Blue Dogs to help rein in Obama's spending. However, only 11 Blue Dogs voted “Nay” on the budget- and they are in the minority of their caucus. In fact, it appears that around 80 percent of the “fiscally conservative” Blue Dogs voted for the budget bill, including all of the caucus leaders listed below.

Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration: Rep. Allen Boyd (FL-2)

Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy: Rep. Dennis Moore (KS-3)

Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications: Rep. Mike Ross (AR-4)

Blue Dog Whip: Rep. Stephanie Herseth (SD-AL)

Oh well...I should have know better.

Republicans Best bet in the North East

Republican state Sen. Sam Caligiuri is joining former Rep. Rob Simmons in a race to take on Democratic Sen. Christopher J. Dodd.

Dodd's popularity at home has plummeted since last summer, thanks to a series of scandals related to real estate deals and his ties to the financial industry.

The latest poll, conducted by Research 2000 March 23-25, shows Simmons providing the stronger challenge to Dodd -- Simmons trailed the incumbent in a hypothetical match-up -- 45 percent to 40 percent with 15 percent undecided. Dodd led Caligiuri 51 percent to 30 percent with 19 percent undecided.

Republicans Need to Stand Up For an Alternative

Update: According to CQ, Arizona Sen. John McCain brushed aside top Senate Republicans to offer his vision for the nation’s fiscal future Wednesday...he proposed a 10-year budget plan, offered as an amendment to a Democratic budget would hold spending for domestic programs dramatically below the projections of President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress and envisions lower deficits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the past two weeks the internet, cable tv and talk radio, have been awash in fiery rhetoric proclaiming the Democrat-proposed $3.6 trillion budget will be the ruin of America. They have been predicting a doomsday scenario of crushing debt and eventual federal bankruptcy if President Obama's historic spending blueprint passes. All well and good- but what has the GOP offered as an alternative?

Republicans need to become more than just the party of "No." As the legislature debates Obama's nearly $4 trillion budget most Senate Republicans want to simply try to offer some weak amendments that the Democrats have more than enough votes to block. This is not going to set the table well for 2010. If conservatives are serious about regaining some measure of power in Washington then they need to show voters what they would be doing differently. Are there risks associated with that? Yes, there are. The hard truth about trying to save money is that things will need to be cut, which in turn affects people negatively. However, the American people as a whole understand the unique situation we are currently in, and when presented with the choice of tightening our national belt, or indenturing our great-great-grand children to our debt, most will opt for the former.

While many Senators want to take the obstructionist route John McCain is attempting to force his colleagues into presenting something substantial.

Republican leaders in the Senate are clashing with John McCain , their party’s 2008 presidential nominee. He wants to offer an alternative to the Democratic budget and they don’t.

The behind-the-scenes battle is part of a larger split in the Republican Party.

Some in the GOP believe their best strategy is to resist President Obama’s agenda and take carefully chosen shots through amendments they all agree on; others want the party to do more to demonstrate how a Republican imprint would be different. -By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff

Republicans have already lost their chance to define their priorities on the stimulus package, the catchall appropriations law, and TARP. “We continue to be deemed the party of no,” McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said. The McCain plan “at least provides an alternative and outlines the issues that are important to the Republican Party.”

Republicans in the House have decided not to stand still and have released an alternative budget that would cut taxes and overhaul Medicare. The plan, drafted by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, also freezes spending on domestic programs passed by Congress each year and repeals most of the spending in Obama's economic stimulus bill. Most intriguing are the tax reforms proposed in the bill. The alternative plan would offer a simplified tax code where couples would have the option of a 10 percent rate on the first $100,000 of income, with a 25 percent rate thereafter, with the first $25,000 of income exempt. Taxpayers could also choose to remain in the current system.

This bill of course has no chance of passing, but at least it can act as a visual to voters two years from now. For better or worse, This is what Republicans would have done. "This is the time to pare back government spending. It is not the time to fulfill every liberal dream and spend America into catastrophe," Mitt Romney, '08 primary runner-up, told CPAC in February. One can only wonder how a Romney led GOP would handle the current crisis.