Caroline Kennedy for Senate..

...because, you know, her last name is Kennedy. And her dad was JFK (no, not that one). And her Dad had a dream once, and that dream was Barack Obama. Or maybe it wasn't.

Did I mention her name is Kennedy?

(in related news, Mary Joe Kopechne was unavailable for comment.)

Was it ever about race anyway?

In the days following the election, several interesting trends have begun to manifest themselves, according to my (admitedly non-scientific) observations. First, staunch Obama supporters seem reluctant to admit to themselves that its over, they won, and the man who billed himself as a grass-roots, hip and alternative "movement" must now assume the mantle of mere earthly politician. I've noticed a surprising number of people around New York City still wearing Obama buttons; not simply on bags or attached to some accessory where its presence could be forgotten, but displayed prominently pinned to the front of their clothing. At the Knicks game on Sunday, several people brought signs referencing the president-elect, and someone held up a full-sized newspaper declaring Obama's victory. That this election was an education in the cult of personality is no new observation, but this is a bit much.

Second, Obama's administration is already being hailed as a success, the primary criteria being that it will happen at all, and one group is actually lobbying for a national holiday to recognize his election (!).

Most fascinating of all, and perhaps somewhat responsible for the previous two, is the renewed discussion of the future role of race in politics now that America has elected a black president. In today's Wall Street journal, Juan Williams writes a lengthy editorial, detailing the sad history of racial politics in America, ending with the hopeful prognosis that peddlers of racial tension will be marginalized by the landmark election:

"The market has irrevocably shrunk for Sharpton-style tirades against "the man" and "the system." The emphasis on racial threats and extortion-like demands -- all aimed at maximizing white guilt as leverage for getting government and corporate money -- has lost its moment. How does anyone waste time on racial fantasies like reparations for slavery when there is a black man who earned his way into the White House?"

Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan declared the election a success, but warned that the (apparently ingrained) racism in America would continue, and perhaps even worsen as a result of Obama's victory(!) What this discussion (if you can call Farrakhan's comments part of a dialog) ignores, or takes as a foregone conclusion, is the role of race in this election. Ironically, I believe that the latter concludes the former, in so far as this election was never, primarily, about race at all. What's more, to the extent it was a factor, it probably helped.

In retrospect, 2008 was a year that was all but tailor made for Democrats to begin with, given the President's approval ratings, the shaky economy, and a sticky public opinion of the Iraq war (despite recent gains). From that perspective, the more important race was really the Democratic primary. While Clinton and Obama struggled to diffrentiate themselves, they were both selling a similar product - bigger, more involved government, an exit from Iraq, and an end to Bush fatigue. Much has been said about the achievement of electing a black man to the Presidency, but I think the fact that Obama was able to defeat Hillary is the more telling indicator of the state of race relations in America, primarily because so little seperated the candidates other than their arbitrary racial differences. By prevailing in a contest where most all else was equal, Obama suceeded on the basis of his skills as a politician (principaly an orator, given the dearth of specifics that has marked his campaign), and proved that race was no longer a factor in seeking the presidency. Choosing amongst apparent equals, voters had no problem selecting a minority. Being able to choose whether or not to elect Barack Obama based on his policies and differences from John McCain, not the outcome of that choice, was the truly historical moment.

Evaluating the results of the general election on the basis of race seems largely irrelevant, given the incredible downturn in the economy, the vastly improved (and underreported) situation in Iraq, and the myriad philosophical and practical differences seperating McCain and Obama. There are simply too many other differences between the candidates, and confounding political variables, to claim that Americans cared much at all about race. True, I imagine there may have been some fleeting number of potential Hillary supporters who couldn't stomach pulling the lever for a black candidate. They would likely have been outnumbered by those who were motivated by the desire to achieve a historic election, merely for the superficial satisfaction of it having been done. Voting for Obama in a way even became the perfect form of progressive bona fides for some ("I'm race blind, except when overtly making note of race proves how race blind I am"). These effects were probably marginal, at best, however. Most of Obama's supporters were probably going to vote for him anyway, and likely would have voted for Hilary instead given the option. And that's just the point - Obama won, in the end, because he ran a better campaign, in a more sympathetic environment, against an opponent who never had it all together. Its that simple. His sucess in the general election tells us much about the dissatisfied American electorate, and the marketability of outdated, populist nonsense in shiny packages, but little about race at all. And more importantly, his defeat (despite the dire prognostications) would have told us equally little.

Either way, as Williams' editorial notes, it appears we have at last transcended the era of race as a limiting factor in politics. Maybe now we can stop hearing about it.

The sun also rises

What a time to be an American, some will say, and they'll be right of course. While he was not my candidate, Obama will be my president; that is the essence of democracy, and a courtesy that many of my contemporaries refused to extend to President Bush (more on that later). And while I did not vote for him, and am disappointed so many did, the election of Barack Obama nevertheless represents a historic moment for America, and a grand opportunity for both parties in Washington.

Last night's election was closer than many expected, despite the eventual electoral count, and I am heartened that even in a year as bad as 2008 (for Republicans), McCain still had a sporting chance. That said, it is essential that those of us on the right re-examine the direction of the conservative movement in America, and where it has fallen short. There will be plenty of time to make such reflections, and I plan on doing just that as I resume blogging, but for today, I wanted to point out a few opportunities for optimism:

• It appears that the Democrats will not gain a 60 seat super majority in Congress. A hollow victory, maybe, but the four remaining races still called "tossups" are all leaning republican. The ability of the republicans to prevent shenanigans on an unprecedented scale will do much to temper the coming ideological hairpin in Washington.


• On that note, its razor thin, but Al Franken looks like he will remain a bad Limbaugh wanna-be.


• Several important, and contested, ballot referendums passed last night, notably Nebraska's bid to end race-based preferences in government and higher education. Colorado's similar measure remains too close to call. That such important initiatives would pass in this election is even more meaningful, and signals even more decisively the post-racial state of the American voter. A number of referendums on gay marriage appear to have passed, and while I am begrudgingly in agreement with most of them (for lack of any "its all civil unions to the government, gay or otherwise, and churches can call it how they see it" options on the ballot), I am more pleased that such decisions are being made at the state level, where they belong. Local and state policies can and will differ, but ought well to be decided at those levels anyway. Sadly, right to life initiatives did not fare as well last night.


• The Democrats have nowhere to go but down, and nobody to blame but themselves - Bush will soon be a memory, and Democrats control both houses of congress. Charged with the mantle of leadership, rather than opposition, the spotlight will quickly become uncomfortable, especially when the disastrous policies being handed down have the Pelosi/Reid seal of approval. The opportunity will be ripe for a 1994 replay in 2010.


• Republicans can finally regroup as a party. McCain finally had his day in the sun, and at last the lingering bitterness over 2000 has been vanquished. With nothing to lose, once again conservatives can turn their attention to fiscal responsibility, sound foreign policy, aggressive free-trade promotion, and a new generation of leadership. Good riddance Ted Stevens, make way for Bobby Jindal.


• Perhaps, and this is just optimism speaking, there will be some turning of the tide against bitter partisanship; nothing angered me more than the disgraceful way people behaved toward President Bush, and it will not soon be forgotten. Disagreement is important, but disrespect for the man, and the office, was both enraging and pathetic. Republicans will do well not to take such an approach toward Obama - the American people deserve that, and will take notice of it.

Only the coming months will tell the damage, and the opportunites, this election has yielded. For those on the right, don't lose heart - we can, and will, be competitive again, and there is opportunity aplenty for a strong Republican minority to stem the tide of wasteful spending and backward policy flowing from Washington. And for those on the left, celebrate, but mind your words. America is a wonderful, and peculiar place, and the tides of politics quickly change course. Govern with responsibility, or be prepared not to govern for long.

Obama vs Economics

The Wallstreet Journal editorial page scolds Obama today for his temper-tantrum response to energy companies and oil & gas prices. Among the better gems:

You may also be wondering how a higher tax on energy will lower gas prices. Normally, when you tax something, you get less of it, but Mr. Obama seems to think he can repeal the laws of economics.

I remain at a loss as how Obama, or Clinton for that matter (she also supports the windfall profit pyramid scheme), plan on lowering the cost of gas to the end consumer by imposing an increased marginal cost on the supply side of the equation. An increase in the tax rate on oil companies means they get less money for selling the same gas at the same price - somehow this is supposed to either flood the market with supply, or magically lower the price, rather than have the predicted effect: companies lower supply and invest elsewhere, or increase price. As the WSJ article points out, we've tried this sort of thing before, and it had the predictably negative effect of lowering supply from domestic producers.

As an added bonus, gasoline demand appears to be relatively inelastic historically, meaning that if domestic suppliers are increasing supply and/or decreasing supply, the excess demand will have to come from the very tyrannical foreign oil meanies we all seem so worried about. The journal ends with the tragically poignant rhetorical, "And these people want to be President?" - but the real sad part, via instapundit, is that one of them probably will be.

The GOP's 18 Billion Dollar Gorilla

As predicted, Jim DeMint's amendment placing a 1 year moratorium on earmarks failed handily last Thursday, demonstrating once again that the GOP has less short-term memory than Barry Bonds. Last year, earmarks totaled more than $18 Billion, or enough to buy at least 75 Bear Stearns. Despite recent gains, the level of fiscal irresponsibility in Washington is mind-numbing, and yet Republicans, once the party of fiscal restraint, voted against the amendment with the same fervor as their Democratic counterparts. How quickly the anti-tax-and-spend party has cast aside the very identity that vaulted it to power some 14 years ago! The Wall Street Journal reports that, in all, 71 senators voted against the moratorium - what is going on here?

Are Larry Kudlow and I the only ones who remember that the 2006 midterm elections were won on the back of voter uneasiness over corruption and spending? With an alarming number of seats vulnerable this year already, what does such a failure indicate about the GOP's sincerity in both convictions and desire to compete in November? In reality, few expected the amendment to pass, but the wide margin by which it failed is certainly indicative of a fiscal malaise on the part of the Senate. Once again, senators have provided fuel for their own pyre by refusing to take a tough stance that will ultimately endear them with the electorate, and vindicate lofty campaign promises and rhetoric.

In addition to harming GOP senators' chances for reelection, will the failure of the fiscal restraint refrain prove an asset for McCain (who supported the amendment), or simply a tool for pointing out his lack of support from party? With the public perception of McCain as causing strain in the party already the accepted consensus amongst the editorial class, it's not hard to envision claims that he lacks his own party's support on key issues. On the bright side, both Obama and Clinton also supported the amendment (albeit probably to prevent a future attack from McCain). Hey, at least they can agree on something!

Re-examining McCain

Now that the nomination on the GOP side seems all but locked up, it's time for those of us who supported other candidates in the primaries to examine the relative merits of presumptive nominee John McCain. The AP, in typically unsourced fashion, published a list of "Main Reasons Conservatives Oppose McCain" (link) that serves as an excellent jumping off point for weighing his shortcomings, and for re-examining what may turn out to be some of his better, more conservative principles. While several of the critiques ("Works with Democrats" and "Kerry Veep") don't really carry much weight, and his fiery temper may well prove an asset, their core criticism are important, and disconcerting. Yet I believe that his overall platform is the best of the remaining alternatives. And while many of his policy positions are in stark contrast to the more "conservative" nominees, upon closer examination actually embody more traditionally conservative values. In many ways McCain may be the closest to a Federalist, small government candidate we'll see in 2008.

As noted by the AP, he opposes the Federal Gay Marriage Amendment. And he should! The Constitution and the Supreme Court have no standing to deal with the issue of marriage (or abortion, or prohibition for that matter), and a true conservative stance is identical to McCain's - he opposes the Federal amendment on principle, but he supports a state-level ban on gay marriage in Arizona. Here McCain mirrors Thompson's unorthodox, but correctly Federalist, stance on Abortion that favors overturning Roe but supports a state-level referendum.

With the important exception of campaign finance reform, McCain's biggest weakness is immigration. The AP writes:

"McCain has been a vocal supporter of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, although he now says he understands the border between the U.S. and Mexico must be sealed first."

Here's where I think conservatives are starting to miss the boat. Economics and small government conservatism both tell us that the government doesn't have much business meddling in the labor supply market. And the fact that so many illegal immigrants are employed only indicates that there is a shortage of labor supply. That so many of the same conservative politicians who decry (rightly, in fact) irrational wage increases and bullying union tactics are so vehemently opposed to more comprehensive immigration reform indicates a dearth of rigorous intellectual analysis in favor of gut-check politics.

The problem, one which McCain has only recently figured out, is that merely legalizing the existing workers only fixes half the problem, and only for a little while. Unless we enact comprehensive reform, including an overhaul of the immigration and visa-issuing process, a stronger focus on cultural blending and assimilation, and a rigorous, funded mandate for real border security, we are only further incentivizing marginal immigrants to come here illegally. Yet where McCain trumps several of his former competitors is the understanding that border security alone does not address the very real question of how to deal with the immigrants already here, and how to fill the demand gap in the US labor market. Nor does it approach the asinine, outdated isolationism that embodies our current immigration program. What possible economic reason could we have for limiting the number of visas we issue to post-graduate degree holders other than protectionist nonsense? And for that matter, why is there even a limit on gardeners and dish-washers coming legally, if we know there is such a demand for them that employers are willing to resort to the black market to fill positions?

I mentioned that immigration is McCain's biggest problem, other than campaign finance - that's because campaign finance was the primary reason I didn't support him in the primaries. While I admire his willingness to follow conviction over party, his refusal to recognize the folly of his vote to limit free speech, a vote that spawned the creation of a PAC army doing exactly what the bill was intended to prevent from happening, still worries me. I hope that he will come to a better understanding of the issue, and its practical implications - he certainly has on immigration. Given the primary landscape, and the implications on our national security this election entails, I think it would be folly not to support McCain at this juncture.

Remember Iraq?

Reuters is carrying a story, picked up (and buried) by Drudge, titled "Iraq ready for "final" battle with al Qaeda: PM" - anybody remember when Iraq was an election topic; or for that matter, a news topic?

With the furor over the wide-open Presidential election, one might expect that the 800 pound foreign policy gorilla that is Iraq would be loudly exerting its presence. But, as some readers have emailed, we see quite the opposite - we are instead treated to a series of variously relevant, or intelligible, economy prescriptions. (Warning: Krugman Alert!) Perhaps this is a consequence of recent economic insecurity and recession fears; perhaps talking about people's money is good politics - if the so-called "bipartisan stimulus package" tells us anything, giving people money you don't have remains a sound path to re-election. But I suspect the real reason is already clear from the Reuters article:

Iraqi security forces have begun a "decisive" final offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq to push the Sunni Islamist militants out of their last major stronghold in the north, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Friday...

"We defeated al Qaeda, now there is just Nineveh province where they escaped to, and Kirkuk," Maliki said, referring to another northern city.

Of course, one would expect Prime Minister Maliki to be optimistic about his country's security, but I think it speaks volumes about our own politicians, and our news media, that the current developments and trends in Iraq are being so underreported. Once the rhetorical bloviating over the failed "political benchmarks" (a legitimate, but I believe limited, critique) proved ineffective, opponents of the war and the current strategy instead adopted an attitude of blasé ignorance, and the topic has slipped from the national conscious. Conveniently, this served the dual purposes of both neutralizing the successes as a campaign issue, and cementing public sentiment on the topic before so many positive developments could have influenced it. At this rate, AQI will be gone and there will be nobody there to celebrate - perhaps al Qaeda in Iraq needs its own stimulus package...

SC Debate Fallout

I posted a quick note last night while the candidates were still sparing, but a night to think and read more following the "Brawl on the Beach" have gelled a few clear conclusions:

• Fred Thompson won hands down, and delivered a warning shot to the GOP field: A lot of supporters have been clamoring for a strong showing by Thompson, and he finally delivered. A number of solid, assertive answers on immigration, Iran/Pakistan, and fiscal policy put him firmly in control, but the highlight of the evening, and the first cause for raucous applause, was his trouncing of Huckabee on his record of liberal fiscal policy and big government politics. Check out the video below.
  
  Many have complained that Thompson appears "lazy" and "uninterested," but there's no way to deny the was bringing he heat last night. If he can push his way back into the media spotlight, and use his new found fundraising for a successful advertising campaign, he can position himself for a victory and a reshaping of the GOP primary.





• McCain, not Huckabee, is the man to beat: While a lot can change, especially following the debate and the media blitz to follow, it is clear that McCain was in control heading into last night. If his cautious, maintainance oriented performance wasn't clue enough, the subtle jab from Rudy about supporting the surge showed that candidates will be targeting the Senator after his victory in New Hampshire. Several polls, finished before the debate, also have McCain swinging to the lead ahead of Huckabee.
  
  Not only do Romney and Huckabee need to step up criticism of McCain's vulnerable record, but if Thompson wants to complete his own McCain-esque resurgence, he'll need light up McCain's record like he did Huckabee's - and keep the pressure on.


• Romney needs a win: His first place in Wyoming aside, the fatigue of the media's overreaction to his second place finishes in New Hampshire and Iowa are starting to show. He responded well to Ron Paul's nonsense about Israel, but he could have used it as an opportunity to sieze control of the debate from Thompson with a fiery stump on foreign policy. He didn't.
  
  Moreover, his fate in South Carolina may depend on the Michigan results, and the media spin on those results. If he fades to second there as well, support could start to shift to Thompson or McCain, depending on who's leading SC polls at the time. A win in Michigan, and Romney could be looking at a conservative, southern state with a large number of undecided voters that is ripe for the picking. Other than Thompson, Romney is the most conservative of the bunch, and a win in Michigan will be crucial to capturing a piece of the media pie in the "First in the South" primary.

After New Hampshire

Well, so much for Clinton Inc. going down without a fight. With her come-from-behind victory in New Hampshire, and John McCain's media-fueled resurgence, the race is once again wide open. Or is it?

A quick look over at RealClearPolitics.com tells a different story. For the Democrats, Obama may have needed another win to actually pull this thing off. While the media loves to swing elections (John McCain's reappearance act anyone?), they may not be able to stem the tide after Clinton has regained her footing. She leads Florida, California and Nevada by nearly 20 points apiece. The polls for Nevada are from December, though, so that race may change following the Iowa victory. And, of course, Obama is leading South Carolina by at least 10. But a string of losses for Obama, coupled with Hillary's strong super tuesday outlook could spell the end for the senator from Illinois.

On the Republican side, it looks like a game of Primary "Risk." Things are indeed wide open - at least for the next two weeks: Michigan is still leaning Romney, albeit slightly, while Huckabee controls South Carolina and Guliani is commanding Florida and California. Fred Thompson (among the favored candidates at The Oath!) has made South Carolina his battleground, hoping that a strong showing will lead to a surge in support like the one that propelled him to third in Iowa. As for McCain, his future is uncertain. He's polling well, usually second or third, in all of the above races, but will need to make up significant ground. There isn't any new polling out, however, following his victory in New Hampshire, so things may get more interesting in Michigan and Nevada before long.

Iowa Fallout - Are we Hucked?

The results in Iowa, while not a surprise, are indeed indicative of a shift in the primary paradigm. While the big stories are, of course, Obama trouncing Hilary and the "Huckaboom," the real stories lie a little beneath the surface. Some quick thoughts:

• Huckabee can't keep it up: I'm going to disagree with the main stream on this one. The big talk after the win in Iowa is whether or not Huckabee is now the front runner. Please. The talk in New Hampshire is all Romney/McCain. And South Carolina is far from decided. While Mike has benefited from the lack of information about his politics ex-religion, that fog will not last indefinitely. With this victory will come increased scrutiny of his policies, and he will soon show signs of fatigue. So don't worry folks - we're not Hucked yet.


• John McCain is Back: Outside of the meteoric rise of the Clinton-esque Mike Huckabee, the big slobber line for the media is the return of "Maverick" favorite John McCain. I recently discussed an article highlighting his unorthodox but compelling credentials, but I remain unconvinced. The media love-fest over his reappearance in the campaign only adds to the suspicion. That said, he looks renewed headed to the show down with Romney in NH


• Ron Paul has a point: Relax - he won't win the nomination. But the presence of such a radical candidate, and the fact that he is garnering significant support (double digits anyone?) indicates that powerful new ideas outside the so-called "Progressive" wing can still be a force for change in American politics.


• Fred Thompson is still alive: Yes, he finished third. But that's better than expected, and he's vowed to stay in the race. Moreover, he holds an ace in the hole that few other candidates have considered - Wyoming. While the caucus carries less significance, it also has the most potential for a strong Thompson finish before the Do-or-Die South Carolina primary. Lynne Cheney is working for the Thompson campaign, and he could really garner some momentum with a win or strong second in Wyoming.


• John Edwards is Done: It's been a nice ride for the talking populist hair cut, but he isn't looking good elsewhere. He can savor the .5% win over Hilary, and hope for another VP nomination (although I doubt it).

Thoughts? Leave a comment - I'd like to know how the results struck folks.

Chavez, Putin, McCain and The Heisman - Daily Reading - 12/06/2007

Today's articles include positive analysis of both Thompson and McCain, as well as a look at college football superstars' shortcomings in the NFL and some continuing coverage on the landmark defeat on Chavez. I hope to have more to say on the Chavez subject in the next day or two, in particular the lukewarm reception the outcome has had in the US press - not that anyone ought to be surprised. Nonetheless, the outcome is historic and encouraging, whether some choose to ignore it or not.

I've made my feelings known on Thompson before, particularly his excellent white paper on tax reform. As for McCain, a reader writes to argue his credentials as an unorthodox and atypical candidate - a position that McCain seems to relish. The reader writes

I personally like his willingness to break with the Republican orthodoxy on issues like immigration, tax policy, campaign finance, farm subsidies, and global warming, as well as his character and judgment.

In truth, an apparent mixed bag. Although his willingness to call a horse a horse when it comes to spending is certainly encouraging, I remain unconvinced of the merits of McCain/Feingold, an opinion the write does not seem to share.

At any rate, a set of excellent reads. More to come - Enjoy.

• "A Tale of Two Dictators" - National Review


• "The case for John McCain" - The Economist (Hat Tip: AWF)


• "Why This Southern Baptist Minister Supports Fred Thompson" - Red State


• "Heisman Is No Key to NFL Glory" - Why do so few winners make it in the pros? - OpinionJournal

Fred Thompson's Window of Opportunity

Of all the oddities of the current election cycle, I am most puzzled by Fred Thompson's failure to seize upon the numerous opportunities he has been handed since entering the race. I won't pretend that I am unbiased - he's certainly the candidate I am the most intrigued with, especially in light of his penchant for "straight talk" and sticking to his ideology. More conservative, it would seem, than Giuliani and with more potential for Christian Right appeal than Romney, he has all the makings of the popular candidate. His proposals, moreover, have been by far the most substantial, and carry a broad appeal - see as an example his Tax Reform Plan, which proposes lower corporate tax rates, repealing the AMT, and instating an opt-in flat tax with 10% and 25% flat income brackets. Certainly more food for thought than the usual "Make the Bush Tax Cuts Permanent." The general feeling when he announced his candidacy, in fact, was that people want him to assume the role of the consensus GOP candidate. He just doesn't seem to have done it.

The Times wrote on Friday that Thompson is viewed as lazy and that his campaign events are haphazardly prepared and often surprisingly sparse. While Thompson is quick to point out that this style of campaigning was far more regular in the past, and indeed the norm for Reagan, this is not a typical election cycle. The lack of a clear Republican choice, the deluge of media attention, both new and old, and the particularly partisan state of politics has created an environment that demands incredible amounts of action on the part of any of the candidates.

All that said, it seems like Thompson has been dealt at least one more chance to make a run at a bounce, especially in the South, where he polls the strongest (RCP average here). The combination of a recent, but uncapitalized, NRLC endorsement of his surprisingly Libertarian stance on Abortion, and a strong showing at the most recent debate, mean that he has another chance to seize momentum in the race that desperately wants a front runner. His best strategy - a marketing blitz touting his more common-sense conservative credentials and his strong endorsements, and an increase in his presence in the states he is competitive in. If he can remind people why they wanted him to enter the race, and why so many have quipped that he's the candidate people want to support, he might be able to turn some heads in Iowa and South Carolina, and turn his campaign around.