The Dems fall right into the trap

Now it’s time for some actual analysis on what the Democrats’ nomination of David Cox means.

I should note that I observed a primary somewhat similar to this two years ago when Shaun Kenney tried to knock off Delegate Robert Orrock. The local Democrats had someone waiting in the wings, but largely kept the would-be nominee there. In the end, the Dems never put a candidate forward; I’m guessing it’s because they didn’t think Orrock would go down (he won by about eight points in the primary).

In this case, however, the Democrats have decided to go “above ground,” and not only put forth their nominee (Cox), but had him rip Scott Sayre up one side and down the other. It was left to former Senator Frank Nolen to go after Hanger. From this, I can draw a couple of conclusions (admittedly from afar).

The Democrats think Sayre will win: They wouldn’t have bothered with a nominee, let alone finding someone to push aside the would-be tax-cutter Will Hrovat, if they thought Hanger would pull this out. Cox will have little, if any, appeal to Sayre voters if Hanger wins. Moreover, a Democrat running against Hanger would put some local Dems in a pickle. Clearly, this is a scenario they don’t see coming.

More to the point, the Dems want Sayre to win: The strategy the Democrats are employing is right out of their Republican-primary-reaction playbook – run a candidate who will supposedly appeal to those who voted for the moderate primary loser. Of course, Cox will run no matter what happens, but no Democrat outside the 24th will care as much if Hanger is renominated. Conventional wisdom holds that Hanger is tougher to beat than Sayre is (said conventional wisdom is wrong, but I’ll get to that later).

Local Democrats know this as much as anyone else, which bring us to the most important point, Hanger cannot rely on a single Democrat to support him in a primary: The partisan Dems won’t be looking at the primary choice as the lesser of two evils (as many did in the aforementioned Kenney-Orrock race), they’ll be looking at the best chance to take the seat. That will mean sitting the primary out, or for the more Machiavellian types, actually voting for Sayre in the primary (note: in the land of my birth and upbringing – New Jersey – cross-party primary sabotage was routine).

So will the Democrats win the seat if Sayre knocks off Hanger?

No.

As I’ve mentioned before, the presence of Liberatarian Arin Sime throws a monkey wrench into the Democrats’ plan, for reasons I mentioned earlier:

Sime will have to oppose Sayre from the left, in which case he and the Democrat will be fishing in the same pond. So in a general election, Sime and the Democrat will battle for the liberal minority while Sayre has the conservative majority all to himself, and as such, he (Sayre) will cruise to victory.

This is why I have always considered Sayre the stronger general election candidate than Hanger. As I expected, most Democrats disagree, including the Democrats in the 24th. So thanks to their mistake, Scott Sayre is not only better positioned in the general election, but the primary election as well.

Cross-posted to Bloggers 4 Sayre

Two basketball shockers

In the last 24 hours, I have seen two rather shocking pieces of information regarding the NBA.

On the court: LeBron James is here – and I mean the guy who is supposed to leave his indelible mark on the game. The man practically willed his team to win Game 4 of the Eastern Conference Finals last night. He is the only player I have ever seen who actually makes his teammates better in mid-game (although I was a little too young to see Magic Johnson in his prime). For all the talent of Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant, they couldn’t make their teammates better. They needed (and in Kobe’s case, still need) pieces around them. LeBron was building his own pieces out there (at least for a night). It was a sight to see.

Off the court: Picture this, ye followers of the blogosphere – it’s 2010, and Andrew Clem jettisons Emmett Hanger, reaches out to Spank That Donkey, and says it was all a misunderstanding; or, if you prefer, BVBL and James Young declare it’s all water under the bridge. That should give you an idea of the mammoth earthquake that hit the Los Angeles Lakers yesterday. Kobe, the man who supposedly drove Shaq out of town, basically announced to the world that the Lakers‘ hierarchy made the decision without any input from him (Stephen A. Smith – Philadelphia Inquirer).

How did Shaq respond? He stuck up for – Kobe.

“I believe Kobe 100 percent,” said O’Neal, reached yesterday while in Los Angeles on business. “Absolutely. There’s no doubt in my mind Kobe is telling the truth. I believe him a thousand percent. I would have respected Dr. Buss more as a man if he would have told me that himself, because I know he said it. But he didn’t [tell me]. He never said a damn word to me.”

Within the Association, it was as close to fact as conventional wisdom could get that Kobe wanted Shaq out, and forced the Lakers‘ hand. He wanted to be the Man, and was tired of being second banana; at least that’s what everybody said. Looks like we were all wrong. Wow.

Attention White House: The Immigration bill has been out a full week and John Podhoretz still won’t support it

I’ve mentioned the unusual (in fact, unique) position of the New York Post‘s John Podhoretz in this debate: he is strongly anti-restriction, but he just as strongly opposes the current immigration bill. I assumed at the time that Podhoretz would be the White House’s canary in the coal mine; if he can’t support it, it’s clearly a disaster.

That was clearly a mistake, for Podhoretz has been forced to pen a second column explaining why the bill must fail, and he pulls no punches (NYP, emphasis added):

Bush wants this new immigration bill. He wants it badly. He said yesterday that he ran both in 2000 and in 2004 as an immigration reformer and he’s fulfilling his campaign promises.

He will take it hard if the bill goes down to defeat. He believes in it.

And yet, as was true of the popular revolt that led to the withdrawal of the name of the clearly unqualified Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court nominee in 2005, he will be far better off if he doesn’t get what he wants. And so will his party.

Podhoretz goes on to explain that the president is spending his political capital on the wrong account (immigration) and risking the collapse of his support on Iraq:

Bush needs a unified Republican Party going into the fall, which may be the most difficult moment of his presidency. The most likely scenario is that Gen. David Petraeus will report modest to substantial improvements in the war in Iraq, but not definitively enough to fend off Democratic efforts to use his report as a key occasion to end the war.

The president must have his own party in his corner at that time. And yet the party is on the verge of self-immolation over immigration. Passage of the bill would drain most of the remaining affection and respect for Bush from Republicans on Capitol Hill, who would have to deal with the populist fallout from the bill’s passage.

He needs all the help he will get. And he will lose a lot of help.

Podhoretz then predicts (as I have) that the bill will fail:

This is one speeding train that could wreck itself easily. But let’s say it doesn’t. Let’s say it passes the Senate. It must then pass the House. The House of Representatives may be an even tougher sell.

Remember that the Democrats won the House because independent voters fled the GOP. Every seat taken away from a Republican in 2006 will be in play in 2008. And polling data suggest that those self-same independent voters don’t like what they’re hearing about this bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may not want to put her vulnerable freshmen in the unpleasant position of having to vote for a piece of legislation that might give Republican contenders an issue to target them with in 2008.

She may want to bottle the thing up in committee or allow so many amendments to be attached that it will be impossible for the Senate and House bills to go through the process called “reconciliation” (during which they are harmonized into a single bill).

This is what happens when a bill collapses. Since it’s easier to see who benefits from its collapse and harder to see who benefits from its passage in the short term, that would be the safer bet at the moment.

And given the importance of the president keeping his focus on Iraq, the better bet.

I can’t emphasize this enough; Podhoretz is just about the most anti-restrictionist voice in the conservative movement. His voice is vital for any “reform” to acquire the political support needed to be sustained in the American populace. Yet he stands with the opposition.

This bill will not pass.

John Edwards: War on Terror? What War on Terror?

Former Senator John Edwards – who, lest anyone forget, is the leader in the Iowa polls and one of only four people with a realistic chance of being the Democratic nominee for President in 2008 (the others are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Al Gore) – doesn’t like the phrase “War on Terror.” Fair enough, yours truly doesn’t like it either. I prefer the Wahhabist, Ba’athist, and Khomeinist War (or WBK War for short), and if Edwards was moving in that direction, I’d applaud him. Then again, he also wouldn’t be a Democrat.

Instead, Edwards doesn’t think this is a war at all (Real Clear Politics):

The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It’s a bumper sticker, not a plan . . . By framing this as a “war,” we have walked right into the trap that terrorists have set–that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam.

To drive the point home, Edwards makes the theme of his speech this question: “what should replace the war on terror?”

The American people must remember phrases like this come Election Day 2008. It is a reminder that the Democrats don’t take national security seriously. Edwards himself almost never mentions Afghanistan unless to use it as a political cudgel against Bush, and al Qaeda is practically an afterthought to him.

The Democrats are slowly making clear that they have no intention of following President Bush’s policies in Iraq or in Afghanistan.

More evidence the immigration bill will not pass

Not even Rudy Giuliani can support it (Newsmax):

In White River Junction, Vt., Giuliani derided the legislation as an inadequate “hodgepodge” that “kind of goes in 10 different directions without any central focus.”

Giuliani also laid down a marker:

As mayor, Giuliani billed himself as one of the most “pro-immigrant” politicians in the U.S. and argued against a bill restricting immigration. Now, he’s taking a tougher position, saying he’s willing to compromise on language allowing legalization for illegal immigrants, but only if the bill requires tamper-proof ID cards and a database of foreigners.

“It has to show when you came in. It also has to show when you leave, which I can’t find (in the) hodgepodge that’s being put together,” Giuliani said.

Meanwhile, the Emperor of Northern Virginia (otherwise known as Tom Davis) weighs in (Citizen Tom):

This comprehensive immigration deal is a measure I can not support.

Now, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Davis, and John Podhoretz are all Republicans (at least I think J-Pod is), and of course, this bill can get out of Congress without Republican support. However, there are tens of Democrats in the House of Representatives who claim to be to the right of Tom Davis (and quite a few actually are to his right). Ditto Giuliani. If they won’t support this bill, there’s no way the Democrats can pass it by themselves, and the way this is going, they would need to do just that in the House.

I stand by my prediction that this bill will not pass.

Did Emmett Hanger actually look at the current budget?

Emmett Hanger tried to defend his tax increase votes thusly (emphasis added, h/t Inpollitically Correct):

As a conservative Republican, I am a strong advocate for fiscal responsibility, but recognize that the term fiscal responsibility may or may not mean lowering taxes and it may or may not mean reducing spending, but it always should mean providing necessary services in as efficient a manner as is possible and within the constraints of a balanced budget.

Here’s my question for Senator Hanger: does he honestly believe the current $70+ billion monstrosity of a budget is “providing necessary services in as efficient a manner as is possible”?

I have seen the future

“If in 2002 I had written that by 2007 Democrats would be singing Ashcroft’s praises as a man of integrity and sound temperament, I would have been laughed out of the room. Right now, predicting a rehabilitation of George W. Bush elicits similar guffaws from the same crowd. But the fact is, if Ashcroft can be rehabilitated, anyone can be.” – Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online

Bring Back Bush
New York Times editorial – January 9, 2012

It’s Opening Day in the 2012 presidential race. Forgive us if we’re unimpressed.

Despite twelve candidates among the (three?) major parties – former Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to resuscitate the Reform Party allows for his temporary and tenuous inclusion – we are left with a depressing feeling of blandness among the entire field. No one – not even Republican insurgent Tom Tancredo – is willing to challenge President Thompson’s insistence that the “liberation” of Iran was better for Americans, Iranians, and the rest of the world. Meanwhile, the nine Democrats – spooked by John Kerry’s inability to hold hawkish and dovish positions at once in 2004 and Hillary Clinton’s dramatic falloff four years later after abandoning her 2002 Iraq war vote – have apparently decided if they can’t beat the Republicans, they’ll join the Republicans.

So even if the expected nominees (President Thompson, Governor Eliot Spitzer, and ex-Mayor Bloomberg) stumble, it will mean nothing to the millions of Americans demanding to know why such a reckless war was started and why it continues to this very day. In fact, the only political figure who has shown any wisdom on Iran has been the most unlikely one – George W. Bush.

Granted, Mr. Bush hasn’t actually said anything in regards to Mr. Thompson’s War since he rode off into the Crawford sunset, but his recently released memoirs show wisdom beyond the collective years of his would-be successors’ resumes. Whatever one thinks about “W” and Iraq, his determined refusal to follow “neocon” aides likes Doug Feith and Richard Perle on Iran is the mark of a genuine, if understated, statesman.

Whatever one thinks about Bush’s “nucular” concerns, he stands tall above everyone else in his willingness to stay out of Iran and risk the wrath of his base. In fact, the former President risked such wrath on several issues: Medicare expansion, immigration reform, campaign finance reform, and of course, his acceptance of the sunset provisions for his 2001 tax cuts, whose expiration (despite the near manically obsessive efforts of Thompson to preserve them) provided much needed revenue to equip the government to deal with the current recession.

This is not to say Mr. Bush was perfect. The NSA-wiretap fiasco, the U.S. Attorney firings, and the Iraq mess will forever be a part of his legacy, but so also will his sincere efforts to bring over 12 million undocumented workers into the American mosaic. While some may question his concern for older Americans struggling with prescription drugs, it is inarguable that it was the Bush Republicans, not the Clinton-Kerry Democrats, who managed to alleviate those concerns. Finally, as bad as this campaign is sure to be, it would be much worse if Mr. Bush had not grown in office and signed the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill, which he had previously opposed.

Will we see in the 45th president (or, if Mr. Thompson is re-elected, the second term of the 44th) the wisdom, pragmatism, and kindness we can now see via hindsight in the 43rd? We doubt it.

Al Gore’s Assault on Reason

I was actually curious about Al Gore’s new tome: The Assault on Reason (ABC News).

Then I realized it wasn’t an autobiography.

What a pity.

Unions 1, "Netroots" 0

The Democrats pick their priorities (Virginia Virtucon and Collette).

Do you remember the MSM report that America is split down the middle on Iraq? Me neither.

Surfing the net will lead you to the most interesting things. It all began with a BBC story on the attitudes of Muslim-Americans. Intrigued, I went to the pdf version of the report, which was written by The Pew Research Center. It was there that I discovered Pew had taken a poll on American attitudes in Iraq, including the question of whether or not the liberation of Iraq was the right decision. I was stunned at what I saw.

Nearly every pollster and pundit has insisted the American public have given up on Iraq, and that a majority of Americans think it was a mistake (the last poll I saw that asked the question, in the Washington Post, put the Iraq-War-was-the-right-decision split at 64%-No, 34%-Yes). So you can imagine my surprise when the Pew folks put the numbers at 47-45. Given that the margin of error for the sample size was 3 points; that effectively means the nation is now split on Iraq – a substantial improvement from just a few months ago (as late as February, Pew had the split at 54%-No, 40%-Yes). So over the last few months, support for the war has grown to the point where the anti-war majority vanished.

This is big news, expect for MSM, who has studiously ignored it. I wonder why.