SorenDayton.com

How Obama failed on cap-and-trade and consequences for health care

Early coverage of the Cap and Trade bill has focused on the successes of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, although I noted that it was also a success for conservative movement groups.

However, focus is beginning to shift. Maybe they didn't get what they wanted? The New York Times' John Broder notes that various groups lobbied the hell out of it. He focuses on the utilities:

The biggest concessions went to utilities, which wanted assurances that they could continue to operate and build coal-burning power plants without shouldering new costs. The utilities received not only tens of billions of dollars worth of free pollution permits, but also billions for work on technology to capture carbon-dioxide emissions from coal combustion to help meet future pollution targets.

By not auctioning these permits, Obama lost a huge amount of money for his earlier proposals. Donald Marron notes that this totals about $600b in revenue that this bill didn't create.

Now think about what Joe Lieberman said yesterday about the health care bill...

Lieberman cited the cost of a public plan as his primary beef with the plan.

"Part of my concern is that, and this goes to the…growing national debt, that inevitably if we create a public option, the public is going to end up pay for it and that's a cost we can't take on," he said.

If Obama had come out of this cap and trade debate with an extra $600b, the healthcare debate would look a lot -- A LOT -- different.

As the scope of the deficit becomes clearer and the political salience of it rises, the cap and trade bill may look like an increasingly poor deal for America, but also the rest of the Obama agenda.

Tags: Syndicated | Comments Off

The successes of the anti-cap-and-trade movement

I was struck on Thursday and Friday of last week by the extent to which activists on the right were deeply engaged on the Cap and Trade bill that narrowly passed the house last Friday.

The thing is, the media has not played this issue up. The same week that the House voted on the bill, President Barack Obama held a prime-time townhall on healthcare. Even the conservative media was mostly engaged primarily with the healthcare debate. Obama and the Democrats played and won the media cycle war.

But the conservative groups, especially Americans for Prosperity, and conservative blogs like Redstate and others kicked in. From both Republicans and Democrats, we heard about enormous call volume coming into the House. This provided a robust whip-like mechanism.

Activists understood that they were the difference between this bill passing and not.

Now the fight moves to the Senate. Already, we see Obama caving on key provisions of the deal that kept protectionist Democrats together. It is hard to see how the Democrats find the votes, especially when they need full support from the Midwest to keep their caucus together.

And next time, it is hard to see how the issue is kept under the radar. The American people will be much, much more deeply engaged.

Tags: Syndicated | Comments Off

Iran: Being on the side of the people

I am watching MSNBC's Morning Joe. Joe Scarborough is going off the rails by mischaracterizing John McCain's statement to the Huffington Post. McCain said:

"I know what side I'm on," McCain cut in. "I'm on the side of the people. I'm not on Ahmadinejad's side or Mousavi. I'm on the side of the Iranian people and I'm on the right side of history. And I'm not going to walk on the other side of the street while people are being killed and beaten in the streets of Iran."

This seems clearly the right answer. There is plenty of evidence that Mousavi is a thug. It is clear that Ahmadinajad is ... bad.

But you can be on the side of a process that empowers the people with honest elections.

McCain's point is that President Barack Obama called people getting beaten up and killed in the streets an "robust" "debate".  Obama has no instinctual interest in defending human rights. This fundamental problem for Obama and much of the left was nicely characterized by EJ Dionne earlier this week in the Post.

That's something to be outraged about. Both sides are going off the rails on this issue.

Tags: Syndicated | Comments Off

Where are the stories of tax fights?

The left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities released a report discussing tax increases. (H/T Derek Thompson at the Atlantic)  They found that 36 states either have or are considering tax increases. Here's the picture:

Several observations on the list.

California and Florida budget fights have gotten national attention. For California, it was a bunch of ballot initiatives failing. In Florida, Governor Charlie Crist broke tax pledge by signing a number of tax increases, and this has become a rallying cry in the Senate primary. 

Six states with Republican governors who are looking at their future are on the list of states that have done nothing. In Minnesota, Governor Tim Pawlenty is clearly looking at running for President. As are South Carolina's Mark Sanford and Alaska's Sarah Palin. Indiana's Mitch Daniels has been put out there and is being considered by some. And Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and Texas's Rick Perry (looking at a primary)

But what I want to know about is the state legislators that are fighting this stuff. Who are the articulate state legislators who are going on the radio and local TV, rallying against these tax increases. Those leaders are redefining the Republican party. They are rebranding the Republican Party by their actions. And they may be winning some of these fights.

Let's hear about them.

Tags: Syndicated | Comments Off

European Election: Victory for the right

Between June 4 and June 7, citizens of 27 European countries voted in a new 736 seat European Parliament. The European Parliament website contains provisional results. This parliament and this election may have a significant impact on a number of patterns in international politics and business. It is worth summarizing some of the results.

Going into the elections, there were several questions. First, would the center hold? With caveats, it did. Second, what impact would the global economic downturn have? Signficantly, the socialists were rejected, to the benefit of the right. Third, how strong would the anti-EU sentiment be in the UK? Very, and this could have some complicating results for the larger European project. And fourth, what does this tell us about the upcoming election in Germany and, potentially, the UK? Labour in trouble in the UK. Probably still good news for the Christian Democrats in Germany.

So, let’s start with the core details, the results, mostly cribbed from the BBC, with additional notes, which are all after the jump.

In answer to the first question, the center significantly held. The European Peoples’ Party (EPP), the party of the center-right, dominated the evening. They had allied with the “European Democrats” to form the EPP-ED parliamentary group that had led the last parliament. the “European Democrats” were, primarily the British Conservatives (”Tories”) and the Czech ODS party. The Tories won 24 seats, up 1 from the previous Parliament, while ODS won 9.  In other words, the old EPP-ED coalition won 297 seats, up 15 from the previous Parliament, while the Liberals added 5, and the Socialists lost 26. Net loss for the center is 6, or less than 1%.  Now this fudges some details like why the Tories and ODS left, but we will get to that.

The center holding is even more remarkable when you look at particular countries. For examples, in France, the socialists lost 13 seats, but Sarkozy’s UMP picked up 11 of those. The Greens also picked up 8, all but 1 of their net gain. In Spain, which has the highest unemployment in the Eurozone, the Socialist government lost 2 seats, with the EPP and the Liberals each picking up one of them. Similarly, in Germany, the EPP lost 7 seats, but the very free market Free Democrats/Liberals picked up 5 of those.

To summarize what happened and to answer the second question, a pro-free market polarity carried the day. Between the EPP and the Liberals, while the Socialists were roundly defeated in nearly every country. In a time of economic unrest, Europeans turned to the right for answers to economic questions.

This is not to say that there were not significant shifts. The most obvious is the underlying cause of the “European Democrats” leaving the EPP-ED, concern about the scope of the European project. In European politics, opposition to EU expansion and the broader European project occupies a similar role as the immigration debate does here. The European Union is the most obvious mechanism of loss of national identity. It is taking people’s money, it is allowing poorer workers who don’t share language and customs from the East, it is more unaccountable and its politicians are in Brussels, not national capitals, etc. The Tories and Czech ODS are openly more skeptical of the European Project. In the UK, the anti-EU UK Independence Party picked up a seat and the far-right British National Party picked up 2. In Austria, Romania, and the Netherlands, this shift has been most clear. There is a clear anxiety about the European project out there that has even  been suggested by German Chancellor Angela Merkel in her recent statement about the European Central Bank.

The clearest manifestation that this anxiety will take will be in how the Lisbon Treaty process is resolved. The Lisbon Treaty is the “Constitutional Treaty” that failed in French and Dutch elections several years ago, and recently in Ireland. In recent months, the Polish and Czech Parliaments have approved it, although the Presidents have refused, so far, to sign the bills. Ireland still has to put it on the ballot again, and, importantly the UK has to do something. The collapse of the Labour Party in the UK, combined with a majority of the vote in the UK for either anti-EU parties (BNP and UK) or skeptic parties (Tories), means that the British government has a crisis on their hands. The old Tony Blair promise of a referendum on a new “constitution” may become politically necessary. The UK may be the block to Lisbon, not Ireland. And all this is prior to the analysis of what The Economist calls “record abstention.”

Finally, the upcoming national elections. The UK Labour Party was crushed. Manuevering has started to remove Gordon Brown, even if Labour Party rules offer no mechanism to allow it. In Germany, Angela Merkel and her preferred allies took 48% of the vote, and a clear majority of the European Parliament seats. Unless something changes, a new, more free market approach is likely coming after the next German election in September. In France, even though Nicolas Sarkozy is no longer personally popular, the Socialists continue to be discredited as a party of opposition.

Tags: Syndicated | Comments Off

Cuccinelli, Campaign for Liberty, and shifting GOP party politics

I have written a bunch about the role of Ron Paul supporters in the party and the impact that John McCain's military supporters may have. Yesterday, I went to the convention of the Republican Party of Virginia. The only seriously contested race was for the nomination for Attorney General. State Senator Ken Cuccinnelli, the candidate of grassroots conservatives, was the most likely winner, given who normally attends a state party convention. And indeed he won.

However, many people were shocked that he won on the first ballot over John Brownlee, former US Attorney, and Dave Foster, a Republican who sits on the Arlington County School Board. When I drove down to Richmond for the convention, I certainly did not expect that result either.

But when I got to the convention floor on Saturday, it was clear what was going on. The Virginia chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus had endorsed Cuccinelli. They were out in force. From eyeballing, people identified with either the Republican Liberty Caucus or the Campaign for Liberty seemed to be about 10-15% of the convention. They pushed Cuccinelli over the top. I think that this marks a pattern for the future of the GOP in smaller caucuses and conventions.

During the 2008 Republican Presidential primary, Paul supporters were highly organized and were able to effectively impact events smaller events like lower-profile caucuses. They got close to taking over state parties like Missouri, Nevada, and Idaho. Many more state parties were concerned with how to manage the situation. Ultimately, however, Ron Paul supporters did what you are supposed to do in politics. They brought new people to the process and organized them.

The question remained whether these outsiders would stay organized and be integrated into the GOP in some form.

This weekend in Richmond, they did. They found legitimate reasons to support the candidate whose supporters would probably constitute a near majority of a Virginia GOP convention anyways.  Tom Tinker from the Campaign for Liberty used strong language:

I had the privielege of attending the VA Republican Convention this past weekend.  Though I am usually wary of Republicans and their so-called "conservatism", I left the convention with a new hope for the restoration of Constitutional principles in my home state of Virginia.  Bob McDonnell and Bill Bolling, the two nominees for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, are good candidates, and though wishy-washy when it comes to their conservatism, are far better than anyone the Democrats could put up.  But the candidate for Virginia Attorny General, Ken Cuccinelli, restored my hope in the GOP, and should give all Virginians a hope for bringing our state back to Constitutional roots, both state and national.  I will support him 100% these next few months, and I encourage you to do so.

A lot of people in Washington argue whether libertarians and social conservatives can be in the same party. Operationally, the activists were. And together they carried the day and shaped the GOP. Whether they represent a broader range of voters, we shall see. But the activists did execute this coalition. And RLC/CfL/Ron Paul supporters are likely to continue to hold an important swing role in party contests like this.

Tags: Syndicated | Comments Off

Video of Black Panther: “You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

Yesterday, the Washington Times wrote about Departmnet of Justice dropping charges against Black Panthers and Democratic operatives for voter intimidation. Michelle Malkin tracked down the complaint filed by Bartle Bull. Bull — and Malkin flagged — that one of the Black Panthers told him “you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker”.

Well, it turns out that there is video of it:

H/T Election Journal.

Tags: Syndicated | Comments Off

Here comes the cavalry: McCain’s military legacy for the party

A fundamental part of political campaigns is that they mobilize constituencies and groups. Presidential campaigns are particularly interesting because they bring like-minded people into networks across the country. The level of awareness is huge, so the size of the networks are huge. Much has been made of the Barry Goldwater organization which, until very recently, has been literally the core of the conservative movement. Much has also been made of the left-over organization of the Pat Robertson campaign, which became the Christian Coalition.

John McCain’s campaign may be found to have had a lasting impact that will be comparable to Goldwater's and Robertson's in the network of veterans, military families, and their allies, who came together around McCain and propelled his campaign, especially in the darkest times in the second half of 2007. At any McCain rally, you would encounter vets of all ages who had gotten involved in politics because of him. These guys are often conservative, but not quite as ideological as Republican activists, just as McCain was. Frankly, it was with this base of new people that allowed McCain to bypass state and county parties that despised him.

While McCain did not become President, a new group of activists have been brought into Republican politics. They know how to work together.  They trust each other. They recognize their local and national leaders through 2 years of emails. And they have taken sides, already, in a number of state-level intra-party fights.

Let's mix this with something Patrick had suggested: one consequence of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be that we will have candidates for Congress, just as the Dems have been doing. My additional point is that there is a national organized and mobilized network that these candidates will have natural affinities with, regardless of ideology. This network may help propel these guys through primaries. 

Let's look at where people are already happening.

In Idaho, Vaughn Ward, who was McCain state director in Nevada and has done some tours in Iraq, is running for Congress against Democrat Walt Minnick, who managed to defeat Republican Bill Sali in one of the most Republican districts in the country. In 2008, Sali almost lost a Republican primary to another Iraq vet, Matt Salisbury, even though Salisbury raised only 5-digits of money, while Sali was an incumbent.

In Colorado, there are several candidates running. In CO-04, you have Diggs Brown, a Fort Collins City Council member and ... Green Beret.  Brown is on active duty, but has been around the district on a book tour. There is a draft movement. I have heard rumors of a couple of more, including at the Senate level.

In Illinois, Adam Kinzinger is running against Debbie Halverson. All indications on the ground are that he has been incredibly savvy early on, locking up key political and party support, in addition to donors. I have heard DC operatives express astonishment at how effective he has been early on. 

In KS-3 there is John Rysavy. In OH-15 there is Steve Stivers. In GA-12, there is Wayne Mosley. And there are many more in the recruitment pipeline.

Tags: Syndicated | Comments Off

Rule 11: Why Steele has no say on Crist

There were a series of questions about whether the RNC would endorse Arlen Specter. Michael Steele has been asked about endorsing Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. And now people are getting their underwear in a knot about Charlie Crist.

I hate to be super pedantic, but the RNC does not make the endorsement decision. A state's delegation to the Republican National Committee control that process. And Sharon Day, RNC Secretary and Florida Republican National Committeewoman, has refused to support an RNC endorsement:

Sharon Day, of Fort Lauderdale, who holds the post of national Republican committeewoman from Florida, refused Greer's request to sign a letter authorizing the national Republican Party to help Crist in the primary.

Party rules say the party must stay neutral in primaries unless all three members of the national committee from a state sign a letter authorizing the party to take sides. Greer, also a national committee member, and Paul Senft of Bartow, Florida's national committeeman, have both signed the letter.

This is the so-called "Rule 11". 

Can we not play gotcha politics with Michael Steele and his endorsement of various candidates? The guy's hands are tied.

Tags: Syndicated | Comments Off

MN-SEN: The merits of the Coleman appeal

Edward Foley, a professor of election law at Moritz School of Law at Ohio State University, reviews Norm Coleman’s appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court in the Senate race there. One of the things that struck me about this recount is that the issues are so enormously complex. No one was able to describe the problems in a concise enough form to really wrap my brain around it. Foley’s analysis confirms my instinct, noting in particular all the complicated state issues, and notes that  this complexity raises broader legitimacy questions for whatever happens. Furthermore, these state problems mean that there is a good chance that the Minnesota Supreme Court could remand the case to a lower court before any of the federal courts are even considered.

Anyways, the problems:

These state law issues, regrettably, are not straightforward. Indeed, as I’ve mulled them over since Coleman filed his brief last Thursday, at times I’ve found them mind-numbingly complex, and I’m someone who specializes in election law and has followed this vote-counting dispute from the beginning (meaning since Election Day, last November 4). It worries me that legal questions concerning the resolution of disputed important elections can be so complicated, since I consider it an important value in a democracy that the rules for resolving these disputes be publicly accessible and understandable. But the situation is what it is, and thus all I can do as a specialist in this field is to lay out the issues as best as I can, clarifying or illuminating them when possible.

This complexity is particularly problematic in the context of Minnesota Secretary of State’s claim, “…recounts are for really the loser to understand and see and then believe that they in fact did not win the election and for their supporters to come to the same conclusion.”

After the jump, we talk through some of the sample problems that occur in counting absentee ballots.

Consider one question: what was the process for counting absentee ballots, do they need to be properly witnessed, and how could the counters check? It turns out that there are two methods for counting the ballots: by precinct poll workers and by a county absentee boards. Partisan challengers are allowed at the precinct but not at the county boards, which lead to different ways of challenging them later in the process.  And precinct workers have no way of checking the validity of witness registrations, while county boards do.

This is just one problem. Foley raises concerns about process:

What should one make of all this uncertainty over the state-law issues in this appeal? I’ve only considered the first of the nine scenarios identified by Coleman, and it seems more than complicated enough. Perhaps the issues will seem clearer after Franken’s brief and Coleman’s reply.  But I’m not betting that complete clarity will reign in time for oral argument.   And, of course, there are still the federal constitutional questions, even after all the state law issues are resolved (as well as other, non-Bell, issues of procedural bar, which might preclude reaching some of these issues on the merits).

One begins to wonder if practical considerations should overtake rigorous legal analysis in the minds of the Minnesota Supreme Court justices. According to opinion polls, the public is clamoring for this disputed election to be resolved. A remand to the trial court might spark a public outcry.

But, he points out that you can’t short-circuit a legal process once started:

Still, Minnesota law undeniably permitted this appeal. Because it did, the Minnesota Supreme Court should adjudicate the appeal according to law, not politics. Therefore, as difficult and complicated as both the state and federal law issues in the appeal may be, the court’s justices must grapple with those issues as best they can using the impartial methods of judicial inquiry.  The justices must follow the law wherever it leads them, even if that place is an uncomfortable one politically.

This is going to be a mess, and it’ll be long.

Tags: Syndicated | Comments Off