Author Page for Scott Lemieux
I sure hope the GOP listens to Ed Morrissey:
Did the House GOP caucus take a hard line on pork-barrel spending or adopt policies to cut federal spending? No. Republican voters and conservative pundits begged the House and Senate caucuses to make dramatic breaks with the previous six years and adopt real conservative policies of fiscal responsibility and federalism. What did they do? They offered to stop earmarking only if Democrats followed suit, a deal everyone knew would never take place. Instead of appointing one single anti-pork activist to the House Appropriations Committee in Jeff Flake, they appointed Joe Bonner, a good Congressman but a well-known earmarker, and mostly because Flake’s anti-pork crusade irritates his colleagues.
I agree this is a great idea. Making clear that upper-class tax cuts and perpetual trillion-dollar war mean serious cuts to programs that people like: definitely something the GOP should campaign on, and vigorously. Don’t kid yourself, the public is just as concerned with earmarks as conservative bloggers, follows decisions about who should head the Appropriations Committee very closely and in particular you have to think that ensuring that members of Congress can’t bring back any funding to their districts will help them enormously in re-election battles. I also have to strongly recommend that the GOP structure its appeal to the phone booth where all of the principled supporters of “federalism” are currently meeting. I suggest that they start by repealing the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act,” which I’m sure will be strongly supported by the anti-choicers deeply committed to “returning abortion to the states.” This is pure gold!
NARAL and John Edwards come out for Obama. The former’s explanation here. It obviously makes sense; Obama and Clinton have indistinguishable records on reproductive rights, McCain has an extremely bad record, and Obama will be the nominee, so it’s a pretty obvious move. NARAL has made some shaky decisions (*Lieberman*, cough), but this one is good.
…More from Ann Friedman.
Reading some comment threads about the now-meaningless WV primary, I feel compelled to quote the GOS:
To all you Obama supporters tempted to belittle or insult West Virginia, just remember how annoying it has been when the Clinton camp has done that to Obama states like Idaho and Utah and Mississippi. A 50-state strategy means just that. You don’t go around insulting states.
Speaking of Mississippi, this is indeed encouraging news.
The Missouri legislature is, as Ian Urbina reported in The Times on Monday, on the verge of passing an amendment to the State Constitution that would require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote. In addition to the Missouri amendment, which would require voter approval, Florida, Kansas, South Carolina and other states are considering similar rules.
There is no evidence that voting by noncitizens is a significant problem. Illegal immigrants do their best to remain in the shadows, to avoid attracting government attention and risking deportation. It is hard to imagine that many would walk into a polling place, in the presence of challengers and police, and try to cast a ballot.
There is, however, ample evidence that a requirement of proof of citizenship will keep many eligible voters from voting. Many people do not have birth certificates or other acceptable proof of citizenship, and for some people, that proof is not available. One Missouri voter, Lillie Lewis, said at a news conference last week that officials in Mississippi, where she was born, told her they had no record of her birth.
This would seem to have the possibility to disenfranchise substantially more people than the Indiana law, with just as little connection to an actual problem.
Via Roy Edroso, Ross Douthat claims that “the GOP is now a working-class party.” The linked article, as you might suspect, does little to actually substantiate the claim as it is riddled with obvious errors, such as ignoring the fact that donations need to be a minimum level to be reported, not accounting for the fact that Democrats have substantially more donations in total, etc. The key strategy, though, is to define “working class” by a series of arbitrarily chosen professions rather than by income, which is crucial. After all, when it comes to actual support at the ballot box Republican support consistently increases as income level does, and this has been the case since 1972.
Douthat anticipates the objection, saying that he’s using “class defined by education and culture more than income, just to be clear; there are plenty of skilled craftsmen who make more money than teachers and journalists and academics.” But while I can understand not wanting to reduce “class” solely to income, to count people with well-above-median incomes as “working class” is to distort the term beyond its usual meaning. Even more problematically, to define class by “culture” is just a straightforward tautology. I concede that if one defines people with reactionary cultural views as “working class” this makes the GOP much more working class, but obviously this isn’t a very useful definition.
I’ll have more to see about Larry Bartels’s fine new book later, but this also seems like a good time to mention his finding that people with high incomes are more likely to vote on cultural issues than people with lower incomes.
I finally picked up my copy of Rick Perlstein’s new book, which I’ve been looking forward to for a while. I was also happy to see it get the front-page slot in the Times book review, although it might have been preferable for the gig to go to someone other than
skin care consultant Rowena syndicated columnist William F. George. Although I suppose once you consider the plausible set of “people Tanenhaus would choose to review a major new book by a liberal,” it could have been a lot worse…
Open Left had a VP poll, which forced me to actually follow through and evaluate candidates based on limited information. My ballot (with any candidates I gave any consideration to included depending on who gets eliminated in future ballots):
|1st||Janet Napolitano (Gov-AZ)|
|2nd||Kathleen Sebelius (Gov-KS)|
|3rd||Brian Schweitzer (Gov-MT)|
|4th||Ted Strickland (Gov-OH)|
|5th||Bill Richardson (Gov-NM)|
|6th||Tim Kaine (Gov-VA)|
|7th||Wes Clark (Gen-AR)|
|8th||Hillary Clinton (Sen-NY)|
I basically eliminated the entire class of swing state Senators because any progressive legislation can’t afford to sacrifice any Senate votes, and I don’t see any of them having advantages compelling enough to compensate. I would also say that my preference rankings–especially within the top 5–are pretty weak. I could live with anybody on this list and none of them seems like a no-brainer. (I might have Sebelius too high because I think it makes sense to go with someone who might carry a swing state all things being equal, but given her connections there I’m assuming she might help carry Ohio. I’m not especially worried about her State of the Union response.)
…Having looked a little more into Strickland’s record on reproductive freedom in response to a commenter, I retract my endorsement.
Armando requests a more detailed argument about why it would not be irrational for Obama to choose someone other than Clinton for his running mate. (And let me be clear: I am not saying that there aren’t reasonable arguments in favor of Clinton, just that the merits of the idea are hardly self-evident. In addition, of course, I was not criticizing “Clinton supporters” but rather blogs featuring apparently serious arguments that Obama is in danger of losing New York and California in the general election.) Since I aim to please, here it is.
First of all, I completely reject his central premise, that the party cannot be unified in the fall if Clinton is not on the ticket. It is of course true that Clinton has many strong and deeply committed supporters, for good reason. But this is also true of any substantially contested primary. And, historically, not matter what they’ve said in the immediate aftermath of defeat, partisans of the losing candidate have generally supported the winning one, even in cases as bitter is GOP 2000. I simply don’t believe that most supporters of Hillary Clinton are narcissistic enough to want John McCain to be elected out of spite should she be a powerful and influential senator rather than a vice presidential candidate, and certainly it’s going to take a lot more than bare assertion for me to take this condescending attitude towards her supporters. (I do agree with Armando on one narrow point: I think Obama’s prominent supporters should follow his lead, be gracious, and not say anything about the VP slot. Kennedy’s comments are indeed not terribly productive. But whether he’s wrong on the merits is a separate question that we bloggers surely can discuss.)
So, I simply don’t believe that this is the only criterion that should be considered. And there are others on which Clinton is a less-than-ideal VP candidate, some of which I’ve already mentioned. First, by far the biggest impact of vice presidents on the ticket is the potential to bring a swing home state into the fold, which Clinton doesn’t offer. Second, if the idea is to shore up Obama’s “foreign policy cred” you want someone with military experience but who opposed the war (such as Webb or Clark); Clinton of course is the opposite. Third, the media. It’s hard to know what to do about the media’s grossly unfair treatment of Clinton; if I was convinced that she would make the best president I wouldn’t let it dissuade me. But when picking a running mate, surely this has to be considered a great deal more important. Fourth, partly because of the unfair treatment she receives from the media, she has much higher negatives than you would prefer in a VP candidate. Finally, even if you assume this is a lot more important than I do I should note that the fact that Clinton appeals more to lower-class whites and older voters 1)compared to Obama and (this is the important step for those of you who don’t understand why it’s illogical to make inferences about the general from primary results) 2)among people who vote in Democratic primaries hardly means that she is the optimal choice to appeal to these voters compared to other possibilities.
Of course, there are points in her favor. I think she fares very well on the important question of whether she would make a good president if necessary, for example. Her mastery of policy detail would be especially useful (although when it comes to health care I’d much rather have her putting plans together in the Senate, where any plan is going to rise or fall.) The fact that she inspires strong commitments from a lot of voters is also important. And, of course, it all depends on who the other possible choices are. But, on balance, there are other choices I would prefer, and I certainly can’t see how it’s irrational to believe that the #2 spot on the ticket isn’t the best role for Clinton’s future in the party.