Saturday, December 29, 2007

The Biggest Reason the Democrats Can't Wait To Get Out of Iowa

There are undoubtedly a long list of reasons why the Presidential candidates are likely in a big hurry to leave Iowa in another five days. The weather is bitterly cold and particularly snowy this year. The charm of the rural Midwest would wear thin after awhile for ambitious pols seeking brighter lights and less intimate "retail politics". The 99% of American voters who live somewhere other than Iowa represent a new and thus far untapped audience for the candidates to deliver their message. But perhaps the main reason why Democrats are eager to say arriva derci to Iowa is the fact that the state stands as a perfect case study of the party's toughest issue heading into 2008.....illegal immigration.

Numerous pundits have commented in the past few months how Democratic Presidential candidates are dodging, hedging, and triangulating their way around the illegal immigration issue in Iowa because the majority of the state's voters are skeptical of the Democratic Party's position. Just last night on CBS News, a middle-aged blue collar man who identified himself as a strong John Edwards supporter was a little disappointed that Edwards' stump speech failed to address one of the man's most important concerns....illegal immigration. It makes you wonder how many awkward encounters the candidates average per day on the immigration issue.

Of course, the media's coverage of the ideological divide between Iowa voters and the Democratic Presidential candidates courting them is cloaked with the usual media condescension towards those who don't embrace illegal immigration as a great opportunity rather than a liability. Since most journalists have little fear of having their jobs "insourced" vis a vis illegal immigration, they're in a lofty position to pass judgment on the disproportionately working-class demographic of voters that has a very real fear of wage suppression with current trends appearing poised to continue unabated.

Iowa represents a particularly unreceptive audience for the virtues of unbridled immigration and guest worker programs. With the state's older-skewing residents and long-standing association with the food processing industry, most Iowa voters remember how the $11 an hour jobs of 1982 have become the $9 an hour jobs of 2007. Their neighbors, sons, mothers, fathers, and friends worked in the former jobs and maintained a solid middle-class lifestyle. The wages and working conditions have declined now to the point that their family and friends have left the town (and often the state) seeking alternative means of employment.

And if it was just a matter of nostalgia for the glory days of the meatpacking industry before its decline back to the Upton Sinclair era made possible through illegal immigration, perhaps Iowans wouldn't be so critical of the Democratic candidates' apologia on the issue. But Iowa remains and manufacturing-heavy and agriculture-heavy state today. Working-class voters here have come to realize that nobody wearing a blue collar will be spared from absorbing dramatic wage concessions and having their field of employment reclassified as "jobs Americans won't do" if we continue to turn a blind eye towards illegal immigration as the Democratic Presidential candidates wish to do, for all intents and purposes.

My position on illegal immigration is somewhere in between where the Democratic Presidential candidates stand and where the majority of Iowa voters appear to stand. I favor a "path to citizenship" (or "amnesty" if you will) for the 12 million illegal immigrants already here as they are not the problem. The problem is an open border that allows hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants entry into America annually. A border fence would be a tremendous asset, contrary to idiotic platitudes about "51-foot fences" coming from border fence critics. Until a border fence or some other tangible means of border security is put in place, voters are right not to take seriously any politician's "comprehensive plan" for illegal immigration. Perhaps then, more people will be fine with redefining illegal immigrants as legal immigrants as the Democratic candidates propose we do.

Iowa's departure with Democratic Party orthodoxy on immigration and a few other issues make it an excellent state to hold first-in-the nation caucuses/primaries, despite the grumbling from most of the other 49 states. It helps Democratic candidates recognize first-hand that the party's base of support are not necessarily in ideological lockstep with their coastal campaign donors who favor illegal immigration so they can have cheap labor to clean their pools and trim their hedges. Iowa is one of the swingiest of swing states and is a necessary pit stop on the road to national victory, and more importantly is a microcosm of the values of Middle America where the Democratic Party has fared poorly in the last two Presidential elections. The Democrats have to be in touch with voters in places like Iowa if they wish to win in November, and although they're probably overjoyed to be leaving the state at the end of next week, I seriously hope the nominee takes with him or her an understanding of the complexity of the immigration issue which they clearly did not have last issue when they proudly attempted to pass through guest worker programs and obstruct border fence construction.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Weirdest Christmas Message I've Ever Gotten

You gotta hand it to Mike Gravel. How many candidates that fit even the "semiserious" category would ever have the chutzpah to be associated with a PR stunt as out there as this thing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0SQusLdlpE

If nothing else, this self-deprecating satire could help land Gravel a gig on a political spoof show after Gravel is denied the Democratic nomination.

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

McCain Surging

Looks like another of my predictions regarding the 2008 Republican nomination is about to bite the dust. John McCain is indeed on the upswing, particularly in New Hampshire. This is very bad news for Democrats as McCain would be the toughest Republican to beat in a national election, especially after being vindicated on his Iraq strategy with the military success of the surge. McCain's excellent Christmas ad is Exhibit A on why he is such a compelling figure in so many ways. I have no doubt whatsoever that he would trounce Hillary Clinton next November and would be odds-on to take down Obama, Edwards, and any other of the second and third-tier Democratic candidates as well.

With the Republican establishment scared shitless at the surge of populist Mike Huckabee in recent polls, the only patently unacceptable McCain is starting to look much better to them. His hypothetical electability numbers soar above those of his Republican competitors in a general election, adding further fuel to McCain's fire. All of these major newspaper endorsements aren't hurting either.

It should be said that McCain is anathema to a large number of the Republican base, who view his occasional dissents from the GOP party line as unforgivable acts of treason. Some of the party faithful may sit out a national election in which McCain is the nominee, but I suspect he'd more than make up for that with independents, with whom he has always polled exceptionally well.

The Republican race is still wide open and I'm nowhere near ready to anoint McCain the frontrunner. Still, the same calculation applied four years ago by Democrats who rallied around their "most electable" candidate John Kerry, seems to be on the forefront of a plurality of Republican minds these days, especially with the rise of Huckabee. Hopefully, the momentum shifts once again in the next two weeks. Democrats should be folding their hands in prayer hoping Willard beats McCain in New Hampshire two weeks from tonight, or else I'm afraid we're in trouble.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Why Huckabee CAN Win It All

The establishment snobs of both political parties, along with clueless media pundits, have reached a predictable conclusion in response to the surge of Republican dark horse Mike Huckabee.....that he probably can't win the GOP nomination and he definitely can't win the general election. I couldn't disagree more, and fear Huckabee to be second only to John McCain among Republican candidates on the electability spectrum.

After George Bush was re-elected in 2004 based upon landslide margins among low-income religious radicals in Middle America, one would think the media and the party apparatus would start to get the message about the vital importance of evangelical voters in electing Republicans to government. The weakest link of the GOP coalition is the evangelical vote. If those voters aren't energized, they are most likely to sit out the election in protest or, in the case of the less hard-core evangelicals, vote for a Democrat. That's why abortion rights and gay marriage supporter Rudy Giuliani would be a calamity for the Republicans in a general election.

Mike Huckabee would consolidate the evangelical vote before the conventions, thus securing quasi-swing states like Missouri and West Virginia in his column by July and forcing the Democrats into the same ruinous 18-state strategy that has produced defeat for them in the last two Presidential elections. And after the Republicans get the Christian foot soldiers fully marching forward, convincing the robber barons and the warmongers to climb onboard will be a cinch. Even with all the whining coming from the GOP's "ownership society" blue bloods and the "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" crowd regarding Huckabee, those voters will certainly see Huckabee as an acceptable (and necessary!) alternative to a Democratic nominee vowing to raise taxes on the rich and "cut and run" from Iraq. The Wall Street Journal editorial page and the John Birch Society will not be endorsing Hillary, Obama, or John Edwards, contrary to the silliness coming from nervous establishment Republicans.

Huckabee has been underestimated every step of the way, and even in the wake of 10 days worth of scandalous headlines, his poll numbers have only increased. It's rather astounding that so many people still underestimate him. The media and the party establishments (both Dems and Reps) have convinced themselves that Huckabee can be successfully branded as a theocrat. It's possible that the "fire and brimstone huckster" tag will stick, but Huckabee strikes me as imminently capable of deflecting it and even using it to his advantage ("the lib'rul media and the Clinton/Obama/Edwards campaign thinks people of faith are crazy radicals.....well I'm here to tell them that we are the majority"). The last two politicians who were are as pathologically underestimated every step of the way as Mike Huckabee were Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Both men were twice elected President. Current establishment snickering strikes me as just as likely to force alot of "really smart people" to eat a plate full of crow next November.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Bloomberg/Gore 2008?

Al Gore is reportedly mired in discussions with New York City Mayor and potential independent Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg. Obviously, rumors are swirling that this means Gore could be a potential running mate to Bloomberg's Presidential run. That scenario seems incredibly unlikely, but Gore's disdain for the Clintons (Hillary in particular) does not rule out the prospect of Gore endorsing Bloomberg's candidacy should Bloomberg decide to run.

Bloomberg has zero appeal for me. Zero! I take very seriously the forfeiture of personal freedoms to lifestyle fascists, and there is perhaps no bigger nanny-state thug in America today that Michael Bloomberg, the man who views no bad habit unworthy of criminalization, be it cigarettes or transfat. Other than honing a reputation as America's highest-profile health-and-wellness tyrant, I can't think of a single noteworthy accomplishment that Bloomberg has pulled off that would qualify him to run for President. He has been a reasonable manager of New York City, already in rebound for several years before Bloomberg was elected to office, but "keeping a steady course" while steering through unturbulent waters does not a valid Presidential candidate make. Some will point to the fact that Bloomberg kept a shellshocked city afloat after the 9-11 attacks, but when you think about it, 9-11 was more of a gateway to economic growth for New York City than an impediment to it. The financial industries headquartered in the World Trade Center didn't move their headquarters to Omaha after the attacks, they just relocated in New York City, benefitting the local commercial real estate market by further driving up demand.

If Michael Bloomberg runs for President, a Republican (any Republican!) will win, as the left-of-center New York City Mayor will steal votes almost exclusively from otherwise Democratic voters who, for whatever reason, can't stomach the Democratic nominee. Across the aisle, only the microscopic remains of the old Rockefeller Republicans would vote for Bloomberg. He could well get 10-15% of the vote given his unlimited financial warchest, but can only serve the role of spoiler, handing an election victory to the very party he just walked away from on the grounds of it being too radical. I really hope Al Gore doesn't go along with this circus show, even as an applauding spectator.

Hillary's Problems to be Solved by MORE Bill?

Rumors are swirling that the embattled Hillary Clinton campaign is in the early stages of meltdown mode, trembling with fear about the sudden momentum of Barack Obama and allegedly exchanging barbs and accusations within the campaign's ranks about who is responsible for the loss of momentum. In the front of the pack of accusers is reported to be none other than former President Bill Clinton himself, who has raised all kinds of concerns from those of all political persuasions about viewing Hillary's potential rise to the White House as the equivalent to his own third term. And with each passing day, Bill feeds that narrative with new campaign speeches where he references his own Presidency dozens of times and cites his wife (the actual candidate) only a handful.

With all this in mind, it's a curious strategy that Bill reportedly recommends a higher campaign profile for.....Bill Clinton. Love her or hate her, Hillary conveyed a sense of command in the early months of her Presidential campaign and I never sensed she was a puppet on Bill's strings, which worked to her advantage. But ever since the "all the boys are ganging up on the girl" narrative following her October 30 debate flop, she has lost that sense of command....and with it the necessary level of gravitas that a woman running for President desperately needs. It should seem obvious to just about anybody than an even higher profile for her controversial husband is exactly NOT what the doctor ordered for healing Hillary. If the Bill Clinton ego trip is allowed to continue at an even higher profile and with even more frequency than it is today, it may very well be the nail in Hillary's campaign coffin. Never could I have imagined the wheels would come off the bus this quickly and this severely for Hillary Clinton.