And Now for the U.N.
I am watching things unfold after the bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq. I am watching to see if this will wake up the UN just the way that the recent bombing in Saudi Arabia supposedly awakened the Saudis. It is the realization than terrorists or Baathists will not see the Saudis or the UN as neutral non-combatants. In fact terrorism is all about attacking the innocent so they never should have had an illusion, but they do. The UN is ignorant--or should I say that countries like France are ignorant. Do they think that the UN can continue to function with a weakened US? Do they think that the UN will still have the authority to enter countries and police truces if the US is not there to back the actions with the threat of force? The UN is not a neutral observer. The terrorists believe that the UN is a tool of the West. The Middle East, India, South East Asia and Africa have only nominal power in the UN. Western powers hide behind the UN as the vehicle for pressing Western values. France is as guilty of this as the US. As for me, I don't mind that we are trying to spread Western values of freedom, but the UN has many members who do not see the bigger picture. They really think that it is some high-minded organization where debate leads to logical conclusions.
This really is best understood if I explain my take on Osama. At the end of the day his goal is to unite all of the Arabs or Muslims in a holy war that places him on the throne of a great empire. He sees the riches of the oil monarchs and wishes it for himself. The reason he, Saddam, the Iranian Mullahs, and the short guy in North Korea will never collude on strategy and thereby give us easy proof of linkage is because at the end of the day they all have the same vain ambitions and each would simply get in the way of others. They are united in purpose and rhetoric, but not in operation. For this reason, success by one is inspiration for the others. No member of the axis of evil can look on the UN as a positive thing. The UN is simply the tool for the US to intrude on Iraqi and North Korean sovereignty. The UN becomes the excuse for taking military action. To say the UN is neutral is no different than saying that the US Congress is neutral.
I wish the UN did not have to suffer this tragedy to realize the obvious, but should they now wake up to reality I will welcome their involvement.
Aug 22, 2003
I Have Heard This Before
"[T]he next election will be the biggest in at least a generation".
That is the theme of a piece by William Kristol. He may very well be correct, but I doubt it. I doubt that even with a Bush victory we will be any further along than we are today.
2002 was supposed to be the biggest election. It would be a referendum on the contested election of Bush and the vision he has for our country. The referendum pretty clearly broke our way and Bush won. As a result what have we seen? Conservative judicial nominees are filibustered in unprecedented fashion. Tax cuts are passed only after slimming them down and Bush begging the same Senate Republicans he put back in power to vote his way. The war on Iraq was delayed in order to appease moderate desires for more negotiation--yet in the end we still went to war and possibly delayed economic recovery by as much as six months.
2000 was supposed to be the biggest election. Everything I said about 2002 applies.
1994 was pretty big. 1996 was key as a follow-up to 1994. 1992 was big. Every election COULD be a big turning point, but rarely is. 2004 could be big, but I doubt it. If a Democrat wins he will declare the major combat of the war on terror complete and look to the remainder of the war as a police operation while focusing on the Liberias of the world while calling them breeding grounds for terrorists. Republicans would likely retain operational control (or at least veto control) over Congress. This would return us to the legislative experience of 1994 to 2000--not a bad thing in fiscal terms, but just a gradual slope towards more bureaucracy as the Democratic President utilized Executive Orders to accomplish the goals of liberal socialism.
On the other hand, if Bush wins he will probably get about 3 more Senators and about 10 more Congressmen. Operationally the House will be the same, especially since none of the new Congressmen would be conservative (all the conservative districts already have Republicans). They would be moderates that would guarantee that Hastert is Speaker, but otherwise willing to bolt with the Blue Dogs on the same type of issues that moderates have done this on in the last 3 years. The Senate would still be filibusterable by Democrats--Zell Miller already votes with the Republican majority so having his seat become Republican is not really any different. Bush will continue to split the difference and avoid confrontation. The major combat operations of the war on terror are for all intents and purposes complete. All that is left is to mop up and continue to define new alliances that will enforce the Bush Doctrine. The only bright side is that tax cuts that are intended to sunset may actually become permanent.
I hope that Kristol's piece provides encouragement to the conservative masses to go to work for this election, but I am not convinced that history will see the election of 2004 as a defining moment.
"[T]he next election will be the biggest in at least a generation".
That is the theme of a piece by William Kristol. He may very well be correct, but I doubt it. I doubt that even with a Bush victory we will be any further along than we are today.
2002 was supposed to be the biggest election. It would be a referendum on the contested election of Bush and the vision he has for our country. The referendum pretty clearly broke our way and Bush won. As a result what have we seen? Conservative judicial nominees are filibustered in unprecedented fashion. Tax cuts are passed only after slimming them down and Bush begging the same Senate Republicans he put back in power to vote his way. The war on Iraq was delayed in order to appease moderate desires for more negotiation--yet in the end we still went to war and possibly delayed economic recovery by as much as six months.
2000 was supposed to be the biggest election. Everything I said about 2002 applies.
1994 was pretty big. 1996 was key as a follow-up to 1994. 1992 was big. Every election COULD be a big turning point, but rarely is. 2004 could be big, but I doubt it. If a Democrat wins he will declare the major combat of the war on terror complete and look to the remainder of the war as a police operation while focusing on the Liberias of the world while calling them breeding grounds for terrorists. Republicans would likely retain operational control (or at least veto control) over Congress. This would return us to the legislative experience of 1994 to 2000--not a bad thing in fiscal terms, but just a gradual slope towards more bureaucracy as the Democratic President utilized Executive Orders to accomplish the goals of liberal socialism.
On the other hand, if Bush wins he will probably get about 3 more Senators and about 10 more Congressmen. Operationally the House will be the same, especially since none of the new Congressmen would be conservative (all the conservative districts already have Republicans). They would be moderates that would guarantee that Hastert is Speaker, but otherwise willing to bolt with the Blue Dogs on the same type of issues that moderates have done this on in the last 3 years. The Senate would still be filibusterable by Democrats--Zell Miller already votes with the Republican majority so having his seat become Republican is not really any different. Bush will continue to split the difference and avoid confrontation. The major combat operations of the war on terror are for all intents and purposes complete. All that is left is to mop up and continue to define new alliances that will enforce the Bush Doctrine. The only bright side is that tax cuts that are intended to sunset may actually become permanent.
I hope that Kristol's piece provides encouragement to the conservative masses to go to work for this election, but I am not convinced that history will see the election of 2004 as a defining moment.
Bring on the Doctor
Up until today I had been a little bit ambivalent about the possibility of Howard Dean being the Democratic nominee for President. Not anymore. He wrote an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal and I all I can say is that it had Liberal written all over it with a big L.
His platform contains a logical flaw.
In the beginning of his piece he argues that we need nationalized health insurance in order to save costs: "The task of meeting the needs of American families begins with health care. My plan will not only insure millions of Americans who are without adequate care today, it will reduce costs for small business, states and communities--freeing up funds that can be used to grow businesses and meet other national and local priorities."
This sounds good. Free businesses from the cost of providing an employee health insurance benefit and allow businesses to focus on what they do best. Of course as a well-trained conservative I quickly asked myself: 'if businesses don't pay for it, who will?' Dean was nice enough to answer later in his piece: "Average Americans pay their taxes through withholding or quarterly estimates. Meanwhile, corporations and multinational enterprises take advantage of elaborate tax shelters, and billions go uncollected. The need for reform is obvious and compelling, and I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration."
Sounds like good rhetoric. Take down the big corporations that keep circumventing taxation by using corporate tax loopholes. But, are these not the same corporations that need to be relieved of the burden of health insurance costs so that they can be more productive? If we relieve them of one cost and impose another cost have we freed them up to create jobs or invest in the economy? Dean would say that he wants to free small businesses from health care costs and stop loopholes for big corporations and therefore there is no contradiction. When does a small business become a multi-national corporation? Does a thirty-employee company that is incorporated and exports to Japan count as a multi-national corporation? I once worked for a company like that and they took advantage of all the same loopholes that Boeing uses. Take it the other way, does he really intend to not have nationalized health care cover the employees of big corporations? This is the mindless kind of stupidity you get when liberals try to come up with plans for socializing the economy.
I could also pick on the silliness of nationalized health insurance or his plan to put tax cuts only in the hands of those most likely to spend it or his careful little dance around budget deficits with this quote: "the federal budget must be balanced over the business cycle". I think it is sufficient to point out that he has contradicted his own principles in the very same Op-Ed. Anyone who thinks like that will be easy for Bush to run against. So I say bring on the Doctor!
Up until today I had been a little bit ambivalent about the possibility of Howard Dean being the Democratic nominee for President. Not anymore. He wrote an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal and I all I can say is that it had Liberal written all over it with a big L.
His platform contains a logical flaw.
In the beginning of his piece he argues that we need nationalized health insurance in order to save costs: "The task of meeting the needs of American families begins with health care. My plan will not only insure millions of Americans who are without adequate care today, it will reduce costs for small business, states and communities--freeing up funds that can be used to grow businesses and meet other national and local priorities."
This sounds good. Free businesses from the cost of providing an employee health insurance benefit and allow businesses to focus on what they do best. Of course as a well-trained conservative I quickly asked myself: 'if businesses don't pay for it, who will?' Dean was nice enough to answer later in his piece: "Average Americans pay their taxes through withholding or quarterly estimates. Meanwhile, corporations and multinational enterprises take advantage of elaborate tax shelters, and billions go uncollected. The need for reform is obvious and compelling, and I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration."
Sounds like good rhetoric. Take down the big corporations that keep circumventing taxation by using corporate tax loopholes. But, are these not the same corporations that need to be relieved of the burden of health insurance costs so that they can be more productive? If we relieve them of one cost and impose another cost have we freed them up to create jobs or invest in the economy? Dean would say that he wants to free small businesses from health care costs and stop loopholes for big corporations and therefore there is no contradiction. When does a small business become a multi-national corporation? Does a thirty-employee company that is incorporated and exports to Japan count as a multi-national corporation? I once worked for a company like that and they took advantage of all the same loopholes that Boeing uses. Take it the other way, does he really intend to not have nationalized health care cover the employees of big corporations? This is the mindless kind of stupidity you get when liberals try to come up with plans for socializing the economy.
I could also pick on the silliness of nationalized health insurance or his plan to put tax cuts only in the hands of those most likely to spend it or his careful little dance around budget deficits with this quote: "the federal budget must be balanced over the business cycle". I think it is sufficient to point out that he has contradicted his own principles in the very same Op-Ed. Anyone who thinks like that will be easy for Bush to run against. So I say bring on the Doctor!
Aug 20, 2003
A Purple Heart
For about a week I have wanted to find one statistic: the number of police officers killed each year in the United States. I had a theory that they would make the number of deaths in Iraq look small especially since we are not just fighting remnants of the Baathist regime but also policing the country. I must admit the numbers were not quite what I expected but I decided to pull an 'I report, you decide' moment.
Deaths in Iraq as of August 19, 2003: 312. This includes British forces.
Law Enforcement Officers Killed in the year 2001, excluding those killed on September 11th: 70 killed feloniously, 78 accidentally killed while fulfilling official capacities for a total of 148.
And a few other numbers.
Accidental Military Deaths (not in Iraq or any war) for 2000: "113 on-duty deaths (108 deaths in FY 1999) and 322 off-duty deaths (321 in FY 1999)" for a total of 435.
Murders in New York City for the year of 2002: 590.
These are just some numbers that should give perspective. I am not saying that the lives of US servicemen are not valuable. In fact, I cringe every time I hear a report of another death. I also turned into a blubbering basket case one day when I saw an interview of a wife who had just had her baby who would never see his father. What I AM suggesting is that I still believe that this war was justified. I further believe that we must stay until the country of Iraq is stabilized. For that purpose the loss of life is low and we should be thankful for that. We have not even come close to the point where the loss of soldiers justifies second-guessing our mission.
For about a week I have wanted to find one statistic: the number of police officers killed each year in the United States. I had a theory that they would make the number of deaths in Iraq look small especially since we are not just fighting remnants of the Baathist regime but also policing the country. I must admit the numbers were not quite what I expected but I decided to pull an 'I report, you decide' moment.
Deaths in Iraq as of August 19, 2003: 312. This includes British forces.
Law Enforcement Officers Killed in the year 2001, excluding those killed on September 11th: 70 killed feloniously, 78 accidentally killed while fulfilling official capacities for a total of 148.
And a few other numbers.
Accidental Military Deaths (not in Iraq or any war) for 2000: "113 on-duty deaths (108 deaths in FY 1999) and 322 off-duty deaths (321 in FY 1999)" for a total of 435.
Murders in New York City for the year of 2002: 590.
These are just some numbers that should give perspective. I am not saying that the lives of US servicemen are not valuable. In fact, I cringe every time I hear a report of another death. I also turned into a blubbering basket case one day when I saw an interview of a wife who had just had her baby who would never see his father. What I AM suggesting is that I still believe that this war was justified. I further believe that we must stay until the country of Iraq is stabilized. For that purpose the loss of life is low and we should be thankful for that. We have not even come close to the point where the loss of soldiers justifies second-guessing our mission.
Aug 19, 2003
Regulating Krugman
It seems funny to me that pundits on both sides say: "We still don't know what started the chain reaction on Thursday. Whatever the initial cause, however, the current guess is that a local event turned into an epic blackout because..." (Krugman). I never set out to make this blog a site for spinning for the Right. In my mind part of being conservative is to be honest. Paul Krugman on the other hand chooses to use his New York Times position to spin like crazy. Immediately after his caveat he dives into muck by saying that the problem is because of deregulating the transmission network. He completes it with this whopper: "And the cause of that neglect is faith-based deregulation."
Obviously he has an axe to grind on the issue of deregulation, but it still is somewhat surprising. My big criticism of Krugman is that he waves his PhD in front of you then forgets all his academic integrity in the pursuit of partisan arguments.
The truth about deregulation is that it can work, but does not always work smoothly. Here is an example of a more balanced analysis of deregulation and the problems we see. The truth is that true deregulation will cause prices to rise in some cases and the politicians are afraid of this. For example, true deregulation would make charge people more during peak usage times and allow them to make the self interested economic decision to avoid usage when it is costly. Politically this would cause liberals to scream that poor people are being forced to pay for expensive electricity. First off they are not forced. Second of all if we really feel concerned about them then provide a direct energy subsidy to poor people, don't regulate the entire system.
The really interesting thing about Krugman is that he should have read his own paper before spouting off today. In an article in the business section of the New York Times, Floyd Norris reports: FirstEnergy may be the culprit--"Early reports traced the problem to failures at FirstEnergy transmission lines in Ohio. The company acknowledged that an alarm system had not been working at the time”; and FirstEnergy has been having problems all summer that have been reflected in the stock price and customer satisfaction.
But Krugman says this: "Under the old regulatory system, power companies had strong incentives to ensure the integrity of power transmission — they would catch the flak if something went wrong. But those incentives went away with deregulation: because effective competition in transmission wasn't possible, the companies providing transmission still had to be regulated. But because regulation limited their profits, they had little financial incentive to invest in maintaining and upgrading the system. And because of deregulation elsewhere, responsibility was diffused: nobody had a strong stake in keeping the system reliable. The result was a failure not just to add capacity, but to maintain and upgrade capacity that already existed."
Is it just me or do Norris and Krugman disagree? While this represents significant strides in journalistic maturity at the New York Times, it also demonstrates that Krugman is a liberal cheerleader. Norris ably demonstrates that a utility that ignores the transmission lines suffers. Krugman claims that owners of transmission lines have no market incentive to maintain those lines. I say Krugman needs to read his own paper. The only thing in need of regulation is Paul Krugman—and by the New York Times NOT government.
It seems funny to me that pundits on both sides say: "We still don't know what started the chain reaction on Thursday. Whatever the initial cause, however, the current guess is that a local event turned into an epic blackout because..." (Krugman). I never set out to make this blog a site for spinning for the Right. In my mind part of being conservative is to be honest. Paul Krugman on the other hand chooses to use his New York Times position to spin like crazy. Immediately after his caveat he dives into muck by saying that the problem is because of deregulating the transmission network. He completes it with this whopper: "And the cause of that neglect is faith-based deregulation."
Obviously he has an axe to grind on the issue of deregulation, but it still is somewhat surprising. My big criticism of Krugman is that he waves his PhD in front of you then forgets all his academic integrity in the pursuit of partisan arguments.
The truth about deregulation is that it can work, but does not always work smoothly. Here is an example of a more balanced analysis of deregulation and the problems we see. The truth is that true deregulation will cause prices to rise in some cases and the politicians are afraid of this. For example, true deregulation would make charge people more during peak usage times and allow them to make the self interested economic decision to avoid usage when it is costly. Politically this would cause liberals to scream that poor people are being forced to pay for expensive electricity. First off they are not forced. Second of all if we really feel concerned about them then provide a direct energy subsidy to poor people, don't regulate the entire system.
The really interesting thing about Krugman is that he should have read his own paper before spouting off today. In an article in the business section of the New York Times, Floyd Norris reports: FirstEnergy may be the culprit--"Early reports traced the problem to failures at FirstEnergy transmission lines in Ohio. The company acknowledged that an alarm system had not been working at the time”; and FirstEnergy has been having problems all summer that have been reflected in the stock price and customer satisfaction.
But Krugman says this: "Under the old regulatory system, power companies had strong incentives to ensure the integrity of power transmission — they would catch the flak if something went wrong. But those incentives went away with deregulation: because effective competition in transmission wasn't possible, the companies providing transmission still had to be regulated. But because regulation limited their profits, they had little financial incentive to invest in maintaining and upgrading the system. And because of deregulation elsewhere, responsibility was diffused: nobody had a strong stake in keeping the system reliable. The result was a failure not just to add capacity, but to maintain and upgrade capacity that already existed."
Is it just me or do Norris and Krugman disagree? While this represents significant strides in journalistic maturity at the New York Times, it also demonstrates that Krugman is a liberal cheerleader. Norris ably demonstrates that a utility that ignores the transmission lines suffers. Krugman claims that owners of transmission lines have no market incentive to maintain those lines. I say Krugman needs to read his own paper. The only thing in need of regulation is Paul Krugman—and by the New York Times NOT government.
Aug 18, 2003
Simon Says
I am very captivated by the entire recall election in California. Here is the latest roundup of reading: Field Poll, Don Luskin, Weekly Standard, National Review, and Foxnews.
First off, the most interesting points from the reading.
The poll showing Arnold at 42% was misleading. "Last week's CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, Aug 7-10, was completed after candidate filing closed. But it uselessly included candidates not running... Moreover, it asked respondents if there was a 'good or very good chance of voting for….' In other words, the multiple name numbers added up to 172 percent" (NRO). In reality the Field Poll is more correct because it adds up to 100% and only allowed single candidate choices. Results? "It shows Bustamante, 25 percent; Arnold; 22 percent; etc."
Arnold IS NOT leading. The next interesting fact, from the Field Poll (as summarized by the Weekly Standard, bold by me):
Bustamante 25%
Schwarzenegger 22%
Tom McClintock 9%
Bill Simon 8%
Peter Ueberroth 5%
Arianna Huffington 4%
Peter Camejo 2%
Larry Flynt 1%
Other Candidates 5%
None of the Candidates 5%
Undecided 14%
Everyone points out that Bustamante is at 25% and Arnold at 22%, but then ignore that UNDECIDED is polling at 14%. We have a good old-fashioned political race on our hands with plenty of undecided voters to fight over.
The One Third Strategy
Let's talk about strategy here. California is an interesting state. At least for Republicans. If you look at California electoral history going back to 1996 you see an interesting trend. I am looking at the ballot topping election every two years (Governor or President in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002). The results go like this (I provide the largest third party result).
2002 (Gov): 47.3% Dem, 42.4% Rep, 5.3% Green
2000 (Pres): 53.5% Dem, 41.7% Rep, 3.9% Green
1998 (Gov): 58% Dem, 38.4% Rep, 1.2% Green
1996 (Pres): 51.1% Dem, 38.3 Rep, 7% Perot, 2.4% Green
Do you notice anything? Sure, you might argue that the quality of candidate makes a difference. I disagree. These are very different candidates and elections over four election cycles. The notable trend is that Republicans can't get more than 42% of the vote. Just in case I was wrong about that I took a look at the highest Republican vote getters in statewide elections for the same years. Here it is:
2002: McClintock for Controller got 45.1% of the vote.
2000: Yes, it was George Bush at 41.7%
1998: Quakenbush for Insurance Commissioner got 49% of the vote for the win, Jones for Secretary of State got 47% of the vote for the win, and Fong for US Senate (against Boxer) got 43% of the vote.
1996: Yes, it was Bob Dole at 38.3%
To be fair there are some people who got more than 42%. But I am going to throw out Quakenbush and Jones because both were incumbent holdovers from Pete Wilson days. They held positions where the incumbent should win unless they have really gotten bad publicity for screwing things up. Even then, at no time did anyone break the electorally critical 50%! Furthermore, Quakenbush soon left office under a very dark cloud and Jones opted to avoid higher office because, one can only assume, as the chief election officer he could read the tea leaves. So the real election that year was Boxer vs. Fong. Even against the very liberal Boxer, a Republican candidate could only get 43% of the vote. In deference to McClintock's performance last year, I will say the Republican statewide maximum is 45%. You can only win three way races with 45%!
When a party is in the minority in a bad way the party tends to become more conservative (or liberal depending on the party). I grew up in a one party state (Hawaii), and the only Republicans were conservatives or the really rare and brave political opportunists. The party is conservative because all the young moderates in the state conclude that being Republican or Democratic is like six of one and half a dozen of the other--they just want to be elected. California party rules may serve to exacerbate the problem, but none the less if they could hold majorities moderates would reside and succeed in the party--give me another reason why Pete Wilson won nominations. With the power of moderates on the decline many believe that a moderate can not win the Republican primary in California. Some point at the Republican primary for Governor in 2002 as an example. Even with the backing of the White House, an early lead in polls, and lots of money Riordan lost to the conservative. Granted this may have had more to do with bad campaigning but it seems convincing to many. One must also ask where was Arnold in 2002? Why did he sit out the race? This is really the message that Simon and McClintock should be sending. He sat out the race because he could read the tea leaves as well.
Republicans in California have an electoral problem. While it might be interesting to discuss how they got there (ignore prop 187, the problem is that conservatives like me have left the state for places where gay marriage and high taxes are not problems) the issue for today is what this means for the election.
It is possible that if conservatives had put a moderate like Riordan or Arnold on the ballot against Davis in 2002 that Davis would have lost. But that is a hard case to make. The independent/third party voters went for a more liberal alternative to Davis--Davis WAS the moderate.
If California is anything like the rest of the country 33% of voters are truly conservative, 33% are truly liberal, and the rest can't seem to choose between ice cream and milk with their cake. For this reason the first gamble of the recall was that liberals, conservatives, AND moderates would dislike Davis enough that he would be recalled--I am willing to believe that this was a safe bet. The second gamble was that it could be a three-way race with the Democratic stand in, Riordan, and Issa (or any conservative for that matter). In a race like this the Democratic stand in would go liberal and it would be a contest of whose base has better turnout. I am not sure that the result of this gamble is yet clear.
Smart Democrats saw this equation and wanted a Feinstein who had the moderate credentials to not lose votes there even while going liberal to activate the base. She passed. Bustamante helps the Republican case. But instead of Riordan we got Arnold. Same politics, better marketing. Meanwhile conservatives can't seem to decide on which conservative to back. The problem in choosing one conservative is that both Simon and McClintock understand the high stakes gamble. Neither will withdraw without a guarantee that the other will also withdraw. Because as soon as Simon withdraws his supporters will go to McClintock REGARDLESS of any endorsement of Arnold. The same would be true if McClintock withdraws. At that point the conservative becomes a 20% candidate next to Arnold's 22% and then we have a real race for the undecided voters. Conservatives have two choices to make. First, do they want a guaranteed win, or do they want a fighting chance. Either way they need to narrow the candidate field. The only difference is should they both withdraw and endorse Arnold or does one withdraw and instead of endorsing Arnold endorse the conservative rival. In Option A they ensure a Republican victory with all the perks that this enjoins for the Republican party in fundraising and power--the gamble is over and while technically a loss for conservatives, a positive hedge is in place. In Option B they just might pull off a win, but if they lose they may be in the political wilderness of an eternity and the infighting of the California Republican party will get worse.
All of this discussion may be academic because the third place finisher in the polls right now is someone named UNDECIDED. If the California election data I presented above is any predictor I am willing to bet undecided will mostly break in Bustamante’s favor. Which would give him at least 35% on Election Day--enough to win in a three-way race. That still leaves about 5% to break for Arnold.
All of this being said, I am endorsing a plan that will never happen. Simon and McClintock join forces. Simon is the key to this. As the Republican nominee for governor last time around he has the best claim to rightful candidacy I can see. But he also has had his chance and failed. Simon could bow out tomorrow while maintaining a high profile by buying advertisements advocating a recall of Davis. Or he could become the nominal chair of the McClintock campaign. Either way this makes him the magnanimous savior of the Republican right. Bush could sweeten the deal by offering him a high profile post in the administration. All in preparation for McClintock and Bush endorsing Simon to run against Barbara Boxer in 2004. I think the conservatives have the goods for proving that Arnold is not up to the task and then they would only be running against his fame. If they could demonstrate to Republicans that together they can offer a solid 20% of the vote then Republicans will start to go their way. The Bush White House can have it both ways by encouraging Simon to move yet remaining officially neutral. Since the current electoral strategy is to write off California in 2004, it really would make little difference if Bustamante won or Arnold won while being mad at the White House. Even if Bush backs Arnold what is the pay off? Arnold will not win with a majority of the vote so there will be no coattail to leverage. Regardless of outcome Bush will poll at 45% come 2004. The real question is can a scenario be arranged where Simon might create a nice enough image for himself with moderate voters that he could beat Boxer and thereby improve Republican strength in the US Senate.
At the end of the day it comes down to one thing: what does Simon say?
I am very captivated by the entire recall election in California. Here is the latest roundup of reading: Field Poll, Don Luskin, Weekly Standard, National Review, and Foxnews.
First off, the most interesting points from the reading.
The poll showing Arnold at 42% was misleading. "Last week's CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, Aug 7-10, was completed after candidate filing closed. But it uselessly included candidates not running... Moreover, it asked respondents if there was a 'good or very good chance of voting for….' In other words, the multiple name numbers added up to 172 percent" (NRO). In reality the Field Poll is more correct because it adds up to 100% and only allowed single candidate choices. Results? "It shows Bustamante, 25 percent; Arnold; 22 percent; etc."
Arnold IS NOT leading. The next interesting fact, from the Field Poll (as summarized by the Weekly Standard, bold by me):
Bustamante 25%
Schwarzenegger 22%
Tom McClintock 9%
Bill Simon 8%
Peter Ueberroth 5%
Arianna Huffington 4%
Peter Camejo 2%
Larry Flynt 1%
Other Candidates 5%
None of the Candidates 5%
Undecided 14%
Everyone points out that Bustamante is at 25% and Arnold at 22%, but then ignore that UNDECIDED is polling at 14%. We have a good old-fashioned political race on our hands with plenty of undecided voters to fight over.
The One Third Strategy
Let's talk about strategy here. California is an interesting state. At least for Republicans. If you look at California electoral history going back to 1996 you see an interesting trend. I am looking at the ballot topping election every two years (Governor or President in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002). The results go like this (I provide the largest third party result).
2002 (Gov): 47.3% Dem, 42.4% Rep, 5.3% Green
2000 (Pres): 53.5% Dem, 41.7% Rep, 3.9% Green
1998 (Gov): 58% Dem, 38.4% Rep, 1.2% Green
1996 (Pres): 51.1% Dem, 38.3 Rep, 7% Perot, 2.4% Green
Do you notice anything? Sure, you might argue that the quality of candidate makes a difference. I disagree. These are very different candidates and elections over four election cycles. The notable trend is that Republicans can't get more than 42% of the vote. Just in case I was wrong about that I took a look at the highest Republican vote getters in statewide elections for the same years. Here it is:
2002: McClintock for Controller got 45.1% of the vote.
2000: Yes, it was George Bush at 41.7%
1998: Quakenbush for Insurance Commissioner got 49% of the vote for the win, Jones for Secretary of State got 47% of the vote for the win, and Fong for US Senate (against Boxer) got 43% of the vote.
1996: Yes, it was Bob Dole at 38.3%
To be fair there are some people who got more than 42%. But I am going to throw out Quakenbush and Jones because both were incumbent holdovers from Pete Wilson days. They held positions where the incumbent should win unless they have really gotten bad publicity for screwing things up. Even then, at no time did anyone break the electorally critical 50%! Furthermore, Quakenbush soon left office under a very dark cloud and Jones opted to avoid higher office because, one can only assume, as the chief election officer he could read the tea leaves. So the real election that year was Boxer vs. Fong. Even against the very liberal Boxer, a Republican candidate could only get 43% of the vote. In deference to McClintock's performance last year, I will say the Republican statewide maximum is 45%. You can only win three way races with 45%!
When a party is in the minority in a bad way the party tends to become more conservative (or liberal depending on the party). I grew up in a one party state (Hawaii), and the only Republicans were conservatives or the really rare and brave political opportunists. The party is conservative because all the young moderates in the state conclude that being Republican or Democratic is like six of one and half a dozen of the other--they just want to be elected. California party rules may serve to exacerbate the problem, but none the less if they could hold majorities moderates would reside and succeed in the party--give me another reason why Pete Wilson won nominations. With the power of moderates on the decline many believe that a moderate can not win the Republican primary in California. Some point at the Republican primary for Governor in 2002 as an example. Even with the backing of the White House, an early lead in polls, and lots of money Riordan lost to the conservative. Granted this may have had more to do with bad campaigning but it seems convincing to many. One must also ask where was Arnold in 2002? Why did he sit out the race? This is really the message that Simon and McClintock should be sending. He sat out the race because he could read the tea leaves as well.
Republicans in California have an electoral problem. While it might be interesting to discuss how they got there (ignore prop 187, the problem is that conservatives like me have left the state for places where gay marriage and high taxes are not problems) the issue for today is what this means for the election.
It is possible that if conservatives had put a moderate like Riordan or Arnold on the ballot against Davis in 2002 that Davis would have lost. But that is a hard case to make. The independent/third party voters went for a more liberal alternative to Davis--Davis WAS the moderate.
If California is anything like the rest of the country 33% of voters are truly conservative, 33% are truly liberal, and the rest can't seem to choose between ice cream and milk with their cake. For this reason the first gamble of the recall was that liberals, conservatives, AND moderates would dislike Davis enough that he would be recalled--I am willing to believe that this was a safe bet. The second gamble was that it could be a three-way race with the Democratic stand in, Riordan, and Issa (or any conservative for that matter). In a race like this the Democratic stand in would go liberal and it would be a contest of whose base has better turnout. I am not sure that the result of this gamble is yet clear.
Smart Democrats saw this equation and wanted a Feinstein who had the moderate credentials to not lose votes there even while going liberal to activate the base. She passed. Bustamante helps the Republican case. But instead of Riordan we got Arnold. Same politics, better marketing. Meanwhile conservatives can't seem to decide on which conservative to back. The problem in choosing one conservative is that both Simon and McClintock understand the high stakes gamble. Neither will withdraw without a guarantee that the other will also withdraw. Because as soon as Simon withdraws his supporters will go to McClintock REGARDLESS of any endorsement of Arnold. The same would be true if McClintock withdraws. At that point the conservative becomes a 20% candidate next to Arnold's 22% and then we have a real race for the undecided voters. Conservatives have two choices to make. First, do they want a guaranteed win, or do they want a fighting chance. Either way they need to narrow the candidate field. The only difference is should they both withdraw and endorse Arnold or does one withdraw and instead of endorsing Arnold endorse the conservative rival. In Option A they ensure a Republican victory with all the perks that this enjoins for the Republican party in fundraising and power--the gamble is over and while technically a loss for conservatives, a positive hedge is in place. In Option B they just might pull off a win, but if they lose they may be in the political wilderness of an eternity and the infighting of the California Republican party will get worse.
All of this discussion may be academic because the third place finisher in the polls right now is someone named UNDECIDED. If the California election data I presented above is any predictor I am willing to bet undecided will mostly break in Bustamante’s favor. Which would give him at least 35% on Election Day--enough to win in a three-way race. That still leaves about 5% to break for Arnold.
All of this being said, I am endorsing a plan that will never happen. Simon and McClintock join forces. Simon is the key to this. As the Republican nominee for governor last time around he has the best claim to rightful candidacy I can see. But he also has had his chance and failed. Simon could bow out tomorrow while maintaining a high profile by buying advertisements advocating a recall of Davis. Or he could become the nominal chair of the McClintock campaign. Either way this makes him the magnanimous savior of the Republican right. Bush could sweeten the deal by offering him a high profile post in the administration. All in preparation for McClintock and Bush endorsing Simon to run against Barbara Boxer in 2004. I think the conservatives have the goods for proving that Arnold is not up to the task and then they would only be running against his fame. If they could demonstrate to Republicans that together they can offer a solid 20% of the vote then Republicans will start to go their way. The Bush White House can have it both ways by encouraging Simon to move yet remaining officially neutral. Since the current electoral strategy is to write off California in 2004, it really would make little difference if Bustamante won or Arnold won while being mad at the White House. Even if Bush backs Arnold what is the pay off? Arnold will not win with a majority of the vote so there will be no coattail to leverage. Regardless of outcome Bush will poll at 45% come 2004. The real question is can a scenario be arranged where Simon might create a nice enough image for himself with moderate voters that he could beat Boxer and thereby improve Republican strength in the US Senate.
At the end of the day it comes down to one thing: what does Simon say?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)