One Week Out from Iowa, The State of the Election

One week from tomorrow the Iowa caucuses will be held, and instead of poll numbers, we'll finally get to see what some actual voters think of this Republican field.  That being said, it's always fun to look at polls and make predictions based on them.  I haven't officially decided what I think the Iowa results will be; however, I am fairly certain the results will do one main thing:  propel Mitt Romney to an easy nomination.

Looking at a graph of Iowa polls since August is like looking at the back of a camel.  First there's the Bachmann rise and slow fade, then there's the Perry rise and fairly precipitous fall, then there's the Cain rise and quick death, then the rise of Newt Gingrich and his current fall, with none other than Dr. Ron Paul rising to the pole position.  However there has been one constant on this schizophrenic graph, Governor Romney sitting at around 20%(*I always use the Real Clear Politics poll which averages out all the major polls).  This is, of course, a reflection of the dynamic that has played out nationally.

There is a serious yearning for a credible Not-Romney candidate to come and take the nomination out of his seemingly boring hands, but there has also consistently been a pragmatic thread in the party that understands the inevitability of a Romney nomination (why he's sitting in the 20's still and always has)--in 1996 people may have liked Pat Robertson, but they understood it was Bob Dole's turn, for whatever reason.  

Nobody is better organized nationally--it's well known Mitt's campaign is prepared to take this thing all the way to California in June, which can't be said of any of the other candidates--and like it or not, that matters a lot.  Romney also is killing it when it comes to endorsements--both Congressional and Gubernatorial--also highly, highly important. 

So, tying this back to Iowa, despite the fact that people seem to think a Ron Paul win would taint Iowa forever, they're certainly wrong.  All the Paul surge and collective muddling of the field is is a reflection of the national concerns people have about the field.  Paul is the 5th conservative the Iowans have tried on for size, hoping like hell to find Mike Huckabee again, but instead they've found a radical right winger that could never win a general, this applies to each candidate below too, (Bachmann), a successful Governor who comes off like an idiot on TV (Perry), an overall moron and likely sexual predator (Cain), and an opportunist conservative who, to channel David Brooks, trusts government a bit too much (Gingrich).  These candidates have all proven to be horrendous Presidential candidates; they would all win no more than 5 states in the Electoral College and cause Republicans to have no control over either chamber of Congress as well.  And somehow these four have kicked their opportunity so badly that, Iowans seem to be embracing a Libertarian!

Why would Iowans embrace a Libertarian?  Well, first of all 22% is not embracing, and second because they've been presented with a terrible choice.  All they want is a credible conservative that can win.  Unfortunately anyone fitting that description sat on the sidelines.  So it's either pick a seemingly fake conservative (Romney, Gingrich), pick a radical that is quite out of step with the rest of the country (Bachmann, Perry, Santorum), or pick the ultimate radical in American politics, Dr. No himself, Dr. Ron Paul.  

While calling him the ultimate radical may not be a sterling endorsement for me, it actually is for many.  Because he's a radical against government spending, and less government spending means less taxes.  That makes people happy.  That makes him a Republican these days.  His foreign policy positions are dangerous, quite dangerous in fact, but random voters don't care one bit about foreign policy, they want less government and they want it now, dammit!  Foreign policy is a sideshow for elites to care about.  Iowa voters most certainly are not elites, so most of them aren't alarmed when Ron Paul talks about Iran.  Swing voters in the general, that's a different story, but right now all Iowans want is less government in their lives.

This is why the Ron Paul people (who conventional wisdom says can't make up more than 15% of the electorate) are gaining traction.  It never would have gotten to Ron Paul if a credible conservative arose.  Last cycle there was Mike Huckabee, this cycle there is absolutely nobody that credible.  Iowans know this, and instead of the "evangelical" vote going to one base Republican, it is fragmented amongst Perry, Santorum, and Bachmann, who are now the lower tier.  They are currently taking up 27% of the support.  If this group had coalesced as it did for the Huck in '08, that person would be in first place and likely win something like 35% of the vote, an easy victory given the current state of play.

Instead we're heading for a cluster at the top with a flawed candidate winning who, unless it's Gingrich (who could hold his own in the South), and the air is seemingly out of his balloon, has no chance to take on Romney anywhere else and it's just Mitt and Huntsman in New Hampshire, then Mitt is off to the races.  Plus, for someone to beat Romney the inevitable, they had to take momentum from Mitt by employing the Obama strategy on Clinton, the formerly much stronger Democratic inevitable in 2008.  

The playbook is as follows.  Go all in in Iowa, whether you think you play there or not, all while building an organization for the long haul behind the scenes and when you win Iowa you've got big Mo on your side and you're ready for the campaign.  You need a special candidate when the inevitable is somebody the party actually wants, but in the case of Romney, a legitimate conservative not necessarily a transformative figure could have easily followed this playbook.  In fact, if they were recognizable enough nationally, they could have quickly become inevitable instead of Mitt.  

But that hasn't happened and it’s too late for it too.  Let's just hope Romney puts up enough of a fight to make sure the GOP takes back the Senate, because from the looks of things now, it's going to be a rejuvenated Obama versus an unpopular Romney, a recipe for disaster for Republicans who want to take back the White House. 

The Republicans had a chance to make this election a big one, but they blew it when they couldn't get a credible conservative to unseat the unreliable Romney.  Team Obama must be unable to believe their luck.

Elizabeth Warren and the Hazard of the Filibuster

Elizabeth Warren was integral in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a brand new bureaucratic agency that helps regulate Wall Street in an effort to do what it's title suggests, protect the consumer.  President Obama, instead of nominating Warren to head up this new bureau, nominated former Ohio AG Richard Cordray.  

Why in the world would Obama not choose to nominate the very woman who rails against Wall Street and loves to talk about income inequality to run the CFPB?  I mean Elizabeth Warren talked income inequality before it was cool.  The short answer:  the filibuster. 

It is common practice for the minority party in the Senate to use each and every trick in the book to block any nomination by the President.  This recent precedent extends to federal judges, bureaucrats, and the like.  Generally this helps to somehow stall the President's agenda or just kill time before they hopefully lose.  The filibuster, or the threat of one, is the main reason that this distortion of democracy can even take place.

The fact that nominees who are completely qualified to hold a position are not confirmed because they happen to be of the other party is ridiculous.  Political disagreement is not a reason to deny confirmation to a qualified individual.  Both parties do it when the other is in power, and this ridiculousness illuminates the need for serious filibuster reform.  Something that will hopefully gain more much needed traction soon.  

As a side note, the Republicans still won't allow Richard Cordray's nomination to pass mostly because they are politically opposed to the CFPB even functioning and the best way for it not to function is to not have anyone heading it up.  Democracy in America just as Tocqueville saw it my friends!

So that's the background and here's the practical problem.  Elizabeth Warren, is a very liberal Democrat who talks Wall Street and income inequality better than pretty much any liberal in the country, and the state of Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states in the nation.  When Ted Kennedy died, a moderate Republican, Scott Brown, won his seat.  Despite Brown's immense popularity, Massachusetts remains an extremely blue state and his seat, while it should have been relatively safe due to his popularity and unlikely victory back in 2010, now is in serious jeopardy of flipping.  

Why you may ask?  It's because after Obama spurned Elizabeth Warren, due to her inability to get past a Republican filibuster, decided to become a candidate for the United States Senate in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The only way an incumbent like Brown loses is when a credible challenger like Warren arises (she can raise money, she's famous, and she's pretty damn popular with the liberal base, a base that's strong in her state).  

So in a ridiculous twist of fate, the Senate decided that Elizabeth Warren couldn't head up a bureaucratic agency and now she may join their ranks.  Which seems more powerful to you running one of the hundreds of agencies or being one of 100 United States Senators?  I'll help you out; it's having a Senate seat.  

Elizabeth Warren is more than qualified to run the CFPB, and the Senate better stop the craziness and the minority party ought to begin confirming the qualified before more of their spurned enemies decide to pose an existential threat to a member of their party like Warren has.  Brown now has been forced to look for ways to moderate himself and play down his conservatism (today he broke with the house on the one year vs. two month deal situation and he will continue to show himself as an independent more and more).  And while this was certainly going to be in the Brown playbook anyway, we will certainly see him do it much more than some conservatives (like me) may like.

Republicans are in a position of power to take back the Senate; they only need six seats!  But they can't throw away their own seats in the process.  Politics is a rough and tumble game and I understand that, but mistakes like Warren can't happen.  And it's embarrassing that Warren wasn't confirmed and that this whole situation has even arisen. 

However there really is just one way to protect against future similar mistakes and ridiculous political moves; filibuster reform to help stop the craziness on Capitol Hill is the only way.

Why aren't we just as mad about Syracuse?

Three men have accused former (recently fired) Syracuse assistant head basketball coach Bernie Fine of molesting them as teenagers.  Though there are some clear differences between this situation and the nightmare at Penn State (mainly that the police investigation has just begun at Syracuse, while at Penn State, there has been a grand jury indictment handed down), the number of outraged columns and angry TV segments has been far fewer, in a case where there charges are just as damning.

The comparisons between the two situations on the surface are obvious; Bernie Fine and Jerry Sandusky were the top lieutenants to two icons of college sports (Jim Boeheim and Joe Paterno).  All signs point to the fact that both men used their positions of power in the most inappropriate way possible, by sexually assaulting young people.

I admit Sandusky’s use of his charity makes his actions appear more reprehensible; however, levels of moral wrongdoing always come out in shades of gray (put another way, who is to say we know Sandusky is worse than any other child molester?  They’re all sick people, all just as morally bankrupt and sick as each other). 

The sexual exploitation of young boys is horrific, no matter how many times or how the deed was done or the circumstances surrounding the situation.  Crime pervades society because it all stems from a thought, often a sick thought brought to action, if someone gets away it, they will repeat it until they’re caught.  This is what we saw in here, and such situations truly are the pits of society.

The moral outrage over the actions of Sandusky and all of the pathetic bystanders was palpable and warranted.  The media and the public at large both viewed the situation as disgusting, as they should have.  The coverage of Sandusky’s actions crossed over beyond the platform of sports journalism, it was being covered by CNN, even MSNBC, the self-proclaimed place for politics, broke rank and covered this sports story. 

Why?  Because this story was more than just sports news, it was news and it showed us the flaws of humanity, not just because of Sandusky’s actions, but also because of the Penn State student’s reaction.  How can a place be so far out of step with reality that they have put a football program and a man on such a pedestal that no matter what happens he cannot be taken down?  These are questions we will likely never have a real answer to.  That makes good news, so it was getting covered like crazy by every type of news outlet. 

Even David Brooks of the New York Times weighed in on the situation, talking about the bystander effect and why, despite the anger people felt towards all who had known and could have stopped the situation from furthering, there’s no guarantee they would have actually stopped it themselves.  A morally chilling thought and the kind of deep analysis and thought such a situation deserves.

After a while all the pundits, and some right away, discussed this story through a common frame.  They felt that we should focus on the victims, pray for the victims, and not allow the machinations of the story over shadow the fact that children’s lives were inextricably changed.

So, if that should be the focus and was the focus, why can Bernie Fine, Syracuse legend and program builder Jim Boeheim’s top assistant, get away basically scot-free from the same media and public who was so outraged at the actions of Sandusky because of what it did to the kids?  If the focus truly had been the kids, the level of outrage would be just the same.

I know it’s early in the story, I know the story is much more shaky, I know that it’s weird that such a similar story would come out directly after the Sandusky saga, and that’s why the elite media has stayed away from it (aside from the early reporting by ESPN).  But the story certainly deserves more attention than it’s been receiving, because if the lives of children were changed, and even somewhat ruined forever, that story deserves to come to light, period.  And stories that deserve to come to light must be covered.

Why aren’t we just as mad about the situation at Syracuse?  I really don’t know, but I do know that we should be.

New Unemployment Numbers and What They Mean for 2012

This month, the unemployment rate dropped from 9% to 8.6%.  A 0.4% drop may not seem to be a big deal, but any kind of job growth is good for the country first and foremost, while also being very harmful to the Romney campaign and quite helpful to the President.


In Evan Thomas and Mike Allen's new e-book, The Right Fights Back (which is excellent and worth the read by the way), Stu Stevens, Romney's lead strategist, makes it crystal clear that, had the economy recovered by now, Governor Romney would have sat this election out.  The Romney camp admits their only path to the Presidency is if the economy remains in shambles because of their businessman who understands the economy message, not to mention the fact that their candidate screams milquetoast moderate elite worse than a certain Thomas E. Dewey.


In a recent poll by the Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners (via Politico) of battleground states, respondents were asked to choose which of 11 issues was the most important to them.  Of the 11, 5 (taxes, jobs, health care costs, government spending and the deficit, and the economy generically) dealt with economic concerns.  These 5 issues received 67% of the vote; dwarfing any other issue.  So it's clear that driving home a message of "President Obama has been a disaster on the economy.  I understand the economy.  I spent my life in the private sector" is a slam dunk for any Republican that can pull it off (no matter how intellectually dishonest it may be) because people want to see a better economy and with a high unemployment rate, people don't trust that the President is improving things.


With unemployment stagnant in the 9% range as it had been, Mitt Romney, despite having flip flopped on nearly every important issue, appeared a formidable candidate; however, with unemployment trending down for the past two months and taking a solid dive this month,  Mitt's "week from heck" as Mark Halperin called it, just got worse.


If the unemployment number continues trending down, Romney's lone advantage is gone.


You see, conservatives have already rejected him.  They've gone from Michelle Bachmann to Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt Gingrich; and let's be honest, these four aren't exactly going to make up Romney's own team of rivals.  Politically each and every one of them is a joke and wouldn't be polling past 5% with a viable conservative in the race.


Unfortunately Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, and Paul Ryan all decided to sit this one out, leaving the only true conservatives in the race as crazy people (my apologies to Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman both of whom aren't crazy, they just both have no chance).  Any of the four named above would be kicking the crap out of the field and there would be no doubt that they would be the nominee at this point.  That's not saying all of them are perfect candidates, they're most certainly not (Bush's last name, Daniels' divorce, Christie's lack of experience, and Ryan's politically courageous, but easy to attack budget all come to mind), but they are all leaps and bounds above anyone currently in the field.


Newt Gingrich is the current front-runner, enough said.  However, unlike some, I give Newt a chance to become the nominee and I slowly am beginning to see him as a semi-viable (which is really as good as Republicans can do at this point) general election candidate.


Specifically, if the unemployment numbers continue to steadily fall, conservatives should, and probably will, cut bait with Romney (who they already hate) for good because they're in need of something more than just a good manager who "understands the economy" to face a recovering and, in turn, formidable Obama.  They will need a transformative kind of leader who is willing to be bold and fight for true conservative values in Washington.  If the economy is recovering, Newt Gingrich becomes the likely GOP nominee (the obvious caveat is that if the jobs number stagnates or rises again, what I've said is nullified). And like it or not, Gingrich is really quite bold and despite his support for multiple not even moderate, but liberal positions in the past, what he's running on now is pure red meat for far-righters who want to see a drastic change in the federal government.


Realistically, with Gingrich's current positions (a 15% flat tax to name one of the more bold ones) I still just have a hard time seeing how he could possibly beat Obama, especially if we are clearly in a recovery (the only way I think Newt gets the nod) and the Obama campaign machine operates as it did four years ago. He wouldn't be attracting enough independent support and the Republicans would likely be nominating their own Mondale, McGovern, or even another Goldwater all of whom did not receive broad based support.  However, Newt would be a base favorite and with the right kind of campaign (either super negative driving down turnout or super "Gary Hart style" ideas based), he could win.  While my head says no, my gut has sort of been saying yes on Newt for a while.   Another possibility is that with Newt taking the right flank firmly and Obama seemingly firmly on the left flank, both men would not gain much independent support allowing the Americans Elect candidate to step in and shape the race, maybe even win.

If Newt gets the nod, something I've accepted as a real possibility, I won't even pretend to be sure which of the aforementioned results would occur, I really just don't know.  The man is the ultimate wildcard, he could move in any ideological direction (seriously he might want to be King).  But I do know one thing; this election is going to be a referendum on which direction Americans want to move.  The question is, will it be right, left, or forward?