Category: Politics

What Could Stop The Hillary Juggernaut?

Salon takes a look at how the seemingly inevitable rise of Hillary Clinton could end, with 10 possible scenarios for dethroning the Queen of the Democratic Race.

It is quite possible that Barack Obama could get his act together just as Kerry had done in the waning moments of 2003 and early 2004. However, the dynamics of this race are vastly different than the 2004 race. In 2004, the Democrats were searching for the most “electable” candidate. The meltdown of Howard Dean at the Val-Aire Ballroom was the clenching moment in which Democrats realized that Dean was a liability to the party. Edwards—despite the endorsement of the Des Moines Register—was too much of a lightweight, and Kerry had the perception of “electability” that the Democrats so desperately wanted.

In 2008, there seems to be little doubt that Clinton doesn’t have a problem with “electability” despite her high negatives. Clinton would get women to the polls. She has experience. She’s been preparing for this job for most of her life. She is the polar opposite of her husband. Bill Clinton was naturally magnetic but an undisciplined and unfocused campaigner. Hillary Clinton is not naturally magnetic, but she’s focused like a laser on achieving her objectives. Her discipline counts for a lot in politics, as it’s kept her from making too many of the mistakes that other candidates commonly make early in the race.

Is Hillary Clinton an inevitability? Politics isn’t about inevitability, and the dynamics of any race can and will change over time. With months left before even the first primary (even in this collapsed season) there’s plenty of time for Hillary to jam her foot firmly in her mouth. Her bizarre cackling on camera, her $5,000 baby bonus plan, and her having to wiggle out of her previous support of the Iraq War are all liabilities for the Democratic frontrunner. Will something cause her to crack, leaving room for a resurgent Obama or an invigorated Edwards? Only time will tell, and even as disciplined as Hillary may be, the more time in the spotlight the more the likelihood of making that fatal mistake.

Winning On Health Care

Karl Rove has an interesting piece in The Wall Street Journal on how Republicans can offer a compelling solution to the nation’s healthcare woes. His solution is to put more control in the hands of consumers through Healthcare Savings Accounts combined with low-cost catastrophic insurance that is portable from job to job.

It’s the right plan for American workers. The current system is completely idiotic — there’s no good reason why health benefits should be tied to your employer. It hurts small businesses, the unemployed, and drives up the cost of healthcare for everyone. The first step in restoring sanity to the nation’s healthcare system is to decouple heath benefits from employment. Employers don’t buy food, they don’t buy transportation, and we wouldn’t expect to live in corporate-owned housing. The healthcare system in America is a throwback to the days of the company store, and that needs to change.

The Hillarycare solution is the same solution that’s failing in Canada and Britain. Because we have a larger, more diverse population, the rate of failure in the United States would be even faster. The inevitable result of a socialized single-payer system is the rationing of health care, the loss of consumer choice, and a system that costs more and more money. There is no such thing as “free” health care — and like anything else, the more intermediaries that exist between payor and payee, the higher the cost.

Mr. Rove is correct: what we need is a system that offers people choices. A combination of MSAs and tax benefits can cover the small stuff — routine doctor’s visits, preventative healthcare, and other minor medical issues. For catastrophic coverage, programs like AFLAC already provide low-cost catastrophic care insurance. Allowing for better risk pooling will keep those premiums low and ensure that Americans can be protected from more serious issues. The more control people have over healthcare, the more options they have and the more incentives the system has for keeping the quality high and the costs low.

We have a competitive marketplace for life insurance, for annuities, for car insurance, and for just about everything else. The cost of those products hasn’t seen the sort of dramatic inflation that healthcare has. The reason why healthcare in this country is so expensive isn’t because we have a free-market system, it’s because we don’t have a free-market system.

The GOP has to stake their claim on this issue. The principles of a sane free-market system are the best principles for America. We can ensure that every American has access to affordable and quality healthcare without creating yet another stifling bureaucracy. In fact, that’s the only way that Americans can get access to quality, affordable healthcare. However, the GOP will lose unless they’re willing to put up a fight against the special interests who want to keep the current system in place. The pro-worker side lost the Social Security fight specifically because they never bothered to counter the inaccurate and misinformed attacks being thrown out by the side wanting to keep the statist status quo.

When conservatives stand on their principles, they tend to win. When conservatives run away from their principles, they tend to lose. America needs leadership willing to stand up for the right principles. If the current crop of GOP candidates are unwilling to do so, we could end up with a socialized system of healthcare that will result in thousands of needless deaths and a healthcare system that will end up like the collapsing Canadian and British systems — except we’ll get their faster and with more devastation in our wake. The American people deserve better than that, and if the GOP leaves the field to the advocates of socialized medicine, they’ll have betrayed both their principles and their constituents.

Is Rudy The Hillary Slayer?

Philip Klein in The American Spectator takes a look at Rudy’s aggressive baiting of Hillary Clinton and wonders if he isn’t the one to go after the Hillary juggernaut. Something tells me that Rudy is relishing the possibility of a rematch with Hillary — one that he’ll be able to see through. (In the 2000 NY Senate race, Giuliani dropped out due to a bout with prostate cancer.) Giuliani’s ad in The New York Times was a gutsy move, one that put him on the offensive against the Clinton machine while at the same time reminding everyone that Clinton was an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq War when it was popular — which forced the Clinton camp to try to spin its way out of its most difficult logical conundrum once again.

There’s a reason why Giuliani is at the top of the GOP match, and his performance during the aftermath of September 11 is only one facet of it. Giuliani exudes a sense of leadership and tenacity in a way that no other politician in the race does. It’s his single biggest asset. The American people could see Giuliani taking on the Iranians and the corrupt Washington establishment with equal verve. Contrast that to Hillary Clinton, who now has 8 years of Senatorial waffling to explain as well as a well-deserved reputation for being someone whose ambition drives her to say whatever she thinks will get her elected.

Neither Rudy nor Hillary are shoo-ins for the nomination — at least not yet. However, unless there’s a dramatic shift in the Presidential winds, the smart money is on a Rudy-Hillary matchup in 2008. Fred Thompson’s slow start even after his lengthy wind-up isn’t helping him. Barack Obama isn’t yet posing the kind of challenge to Hillary that can keep her from double-digit leads. There’s always room for an upset in American politics, but the tea leaves don’t show anything like that happening.

A Giuliani-Clinton campaign would be a clash of the political titans — but in the end, America needs real leadership. Mayor Giuliani has executive experience, he has a strong anti-corruption record, and he says what he believes, even when it’s less than politically expedient to do so. Hillary Clinton is a political chameleon who is intensely ambitious and deeply disciplined — but ultimately her ambition is to get into power, not to serve her country. No doubt such a hypothetical matchup would be close — but knowing Rudy’s tenacity, he’s the candidate who is in the strongest position to take down the Hillary machine.

Bush’s Iraq Speech

I watched President Bush’s speech on Iraq tonight, and was rather underwhelmed. I don’t disagree with the President — we cannot allow Iraq to fall into chaos. We have a moral obligation to help our Iraqi allies. The war in Iraq is a crucial part of the war on terrorism.

The problem is that the President didn’t give us the clear answers to why we’re in Iraq that the American people are demanding. It is not that there aren’t clear and cogent answers, it is that the President doesn’t seem to be able to communicate them.

It is welcome news that the security situation in Iraq is improving. It is welcome news that some of our troops can go home. What we need is a clearer explanation of why we’re in Iraq and how we can get out without causing further problems in the region.

The President has a powerful bully pulpit, and had he used it more effectively this war would be far less controversial than it has been. The American people need to know why we’re fighting in Iraq and why we need to win. They didn’t get clear answers from the President tonight, and men like General Petraeus and Senator McCain have done a much better job of explaining the situation.

The President did not have the right tone tonight. He didn’t give the clear answers that the American people have been looking for. Even though the situation in Iraq is improving, the political situation at home remains tenuous for the pro-victory caucus. That is because the man who is the leader of the country and the Commander in Chief hasn’t done as well as many bloggers have done in defending this war.

I have a great deal of respect for the President, and I find most of the puerile attacks against him to be disgusting. At the same time, a President must first and foremost be a leader. The President has not been the kind of leader he needs to be, and the American people need strong and forthright leadership at this critical junction in history. President Bush can inspire a nation, as he did six years ago in the wake of the September 11 atrocities. He didn’t reach those heights today, and that means that the political stalemate in Washington will continue for some time.

No Backsies

It appears as though Idaho Senator Larry Craig is rethinking his decision to resign from the US Senate. That is, to put it mildly, an incredibly bad idea.

Senator Craig made the decision to resign, which set in motion plans to appoint his successor and allowed the Senator to defend himself (such as he legally can) without the spectacle impacting the people of Idaho and the United States Senate. To try to go back on that promise now will not endear him to anyone. He made his choice, and now he has to live with the consequence of that decision. If he doesn’t like them, he should have thought first.

Senator Craig keeps compounding his situation. He plead guilty but now maintains his innocence. He resigned, but now wants to take it back. Those are not the actions of an honorable man. Senator Craig is proving to be an embarrassment, and it is time that he his political career came to an end. If he truly thinks that his ouster was undeserved, he can certainly try to clear his name and run again. Somehow, I have a feeling that the voters of Idaho will be less than impressed with such a maneuver.

Counting Chickens…

The Detroit Free Press has an editorial wondering if despite all their advantages, the Democrats could still blow it in 2008:

Consider: We have an unpopular Republican president who is struggling to extract some success out of an even-less-popular war that the United States started under a premise that was proved wrong. His fellow Republicans are bailing out of Washington like rats off a sinking ship. Veteran GOP lawmakers are quitting Congress after losing control to the Democrats last year. Investigations and scandals abound…

So 2008 will be a great year to be a Democrat, a cakewalk to power, all the power.

Except that the Democrats have three potential stumbling blocks: Their internal fighting over presidential primaries that could alienate voters in some key states, such as Florida and Michigan; the prospect of nominating a candidate who cannot win, as has happened before; and a backlash in favor of a relatively “safe” Republican presidential candidate by voters who, given recent history, just don’t want one party running everything.

That analysis may prove to be correct come November of next year.

Forget the political situation now. People won’t start seriously paying attention to politics for a year. Anything can change in a year. In 2004, President Bush had just creamed John Kerry. The next year, President Bush couldn’t get elected dog-catcher after bungling just about every major political issue. Politics is always fluid.

Are the Democrats better positioned right now? It’s a virtual certainty. The Republicans are poised to lose seats in the Senate if the election were this year. The House could see more GOP losses. As Bob Novak has been reporting, the GOP’s mood is anything but sunny.

However, a year in politics might as well be an eternity.

The Democrats have an astonishing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The approval ratings for Congress remain at the same lows that swept the GOP out of power. The likeliest Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, whose commanding leads in the polls put her in unquestioned front-runner status. Yet even the Democrats have their doubts about Hillary. The Catch-22 they face is that the other candidates aren’t any better — Barack Obama has personality, strong oratory, and almost no experience. John Edwards is as much of a phony as John Edward and his “Two Americas” schtick doesn’t work when it’s quite clear he lives in the America with the palatial mansions. The rest of the field has no chance — Joe Biden and Bill Richardson at least have some policy credentials, but no traction in the polls. Could Hillary lose the nomination? Certainly. Does it ultimately help the Democrats? Not so much.

The Democrats are playing to the base, but that doesn’t win elections. On the other hand, the Republicans have a problem with their base, but they’re fielding candidates who could actually capture the center. Rudy Giuliani is about as well positioned as a candidate could be. He’s moderate on social issues, has the leadership skills that Bush has been lacking, and is an anti-corruption candidate in a time when government corruption is the #1 issue. The same can be said of Fred Thompson. Even the second-tier candidates have appeal: John McCain’s anti-pork stance has resonance. Mitt Romney knows how to work a room and has strong executive credentials. The GOP field hasn’t set the base on fire, but has a much better chance of gaining traction with the general electorate than the Democrats.

It could be quite possible that a new crop of strong GOP candidates emerge in the House and Senate and get the aid of a strong GOP candidate’s coattails. It could be that the GOP finally gets its act together and realizes that if they run on a campaign of cutting government waste, fighting corruption, and strong national defense, 2008 can be a much better election for the Republicans than they realize. The Democrats are already doing whatever they can to squander their advantage.

The Democrats shouldn’t be counting their chickens before they hatch, nor should the Republicans give in to despair. A year is a long time in politics, and anything can change. 2008 could be a Democratic sweep, but that is not assured — the Republicans can rediscover their principles and start making a strong stand for their values. The Democrats are running against a man who will not be running for office again, and their message is relentlessly negative. The GOP can win — indeed, they should win. The real question is whether the GOP will stand and fight. If they do, the dynamics of the 2008 race could be very different from where they stand now.

Thompson To Announce September 6th

Pajamas Media has details of Fred Thompson formally entering the 2008 race.

His campaign has stumbled in the last few weeks with staffing shakeups, but the reality is that nobody outside the Beltway is going to care about those things. Thompson is either going to stand or fall based on how well he connects with the Republican Party base and the general electorate. Given Thompson’s credentials and policy platforms, I think Thompson has a very strong shot at winning the nomination.

2008 will be an election that will be decided on which candidate can restore competence and trust to government. Thompson, in my opinion, has a better record of that than any of the other candidates, and if he can play to those strengths, he could quickly rise in the polls. Giuliani has had a comfortable lead for several months now, but if Thompson plays his cards right, that could change.

One thing is for certain, on September 6th, the 2008 GOP race will get quite a bit more interesting and the dynamics will certainly change in ways that may be very hard to predict.

Johnson Will Run Again

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) will seek reelection in 2008 after suffering a major brain aneurysm last year. There’s been a great deal of secrecy over his condition, and the voters of South Dakota do have some interest in knowing whether their Senator can fulfill his duties. However, it looks like Senator Johnson will make a full recovery, and the voters will be able to decide whether to keep him in the Senate. The Senator and his family could have done a better job of communicating his status to the voters, but in the end, I don’t think that the voters will hold that against the Senator.

Did Sen. Craig Commit A Crime?

University of Minnesota lawprof Dale Carpenter takes a look at the relevant statutes and doesn’t seem to find much basis for a criminal charge. Legally, that’s seems to be correct. Factually, it’s hard to argue that what Sen. Craig did was perfectly normal. How many people, when in a public bathroom stall, are going to be reaching under the divider and putting their foot next to the foot of the guy in the next stall? That sort of behavior is at the very least highly suspicious.

Carpenter does raise some rather interesting points about the sexual politics of this tawdry affair:

What really seems to have happened is that the airport police had received complaints about sexual activity and were acting over-zealously to deter it, regardless of the niceties of state criminal law. Many gay men throughout our history have felt the sting of these public decency campaigns, have been arrested for alleged sex crimes, and have pleaded guilty at unusually high rates in order to avoid the embarrassment and other consequences of being outed. When newspapers print their names, as they often do, the consequences can be devastating. Like them, Craig probably wanted to avoid publicity and pleaded guilty to “disorderly conduct” in a futile effort to save his reputation and his job. Whatever we think of Craig’s views on gay rights, or of the cosmic justice in this particular Senator being ensnared in these particular circumstances, it’s difficult to see how he’s a criminal.

Given the legal analysis, I think he’s right — I don’t think that what Craig did was illegal under Minnesota law. Minnesota’s attempt statute (Minn. Stat. 609.17) uses the “substantial step” test for a criminal attempt — and there’s no evidence in the record which suggests that Sen. Craig made a substantial step towards lewd behavior or criminal conduct. Had Sen. Craig done the right thing, which is to have secured counsel and fought the charge, he probably would have won.

The problem is that Craig didn’t do those things. The exactitude required by law doesn’t exist in the world of politics, and Sen. Craig would have a very tough time justifying his actions in the court of public opinion — which is why he tried to make everything go away.

I’ve no doubt this is a devastating affair for the Senator, and despite the legal analysis which weighs heavily on his side, I think it’s clear that the Senator displayed an incredible lack of tact. The fact that he used his Senate credentials to try to get out of trouble is worthy of an ethics investigation alone. I think that if there’s any meat to these charges — and given the rumors that have swirled around the Senator in the past, that seems likely, then the Senator should choose to resign or at the very least choose not to seek reelection in 2008.

Legally, the Senator could have beaten the charge. Politically, it was too explosive. The political consequences are what matters to Sen. Craig’s career, and Sen. Craig’s actions have done fatal damage to his ability to stand as a member of the United States Senate.