Soren Dayton's content

One measure of Mitch Daniels' successful Republican governance

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:53:53 -0700

Last weekend, I was in Indiana for the Young Republican National Convention. I had heard a little bit about Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor who was re-elected wtih over 60% of the vote in 2008, even though Barack Obama won the state. In Indianapolis, he even got over 20% of the African American vote.

So I started digging around on his governing record. I was pretty astonished by this one. Daniels has actually been shrinking government. They have a little over 30,000 public employees right now. That's the lowest number since 1983.

You might notice the sharp decline that started in 2004 when he took over.

Rich Lowry recently noted what a bad hand he was dealt, and how he has turned it around.

When Daniels took office, Indiana had an $800 million deficit. He turned it into a $1.3 billion surplus (although it will be eaten into in the current downturn). Since 2005, he's saved roughly $450 million in the state's budget and reduced the state's rate of spending growth from 5.9 percent to 2.8 percent. "I tell you with certainty," Daniels told his Washington audience, "concern about the debt and deficit has not gone out of style."

No wonder people are talking about this guy for President. He has actually run something successfully.

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

How Obama failed on cap-and-trade and consequences for health care

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:18:49 -0700

Early coverage of the Cap and Trade bill has focused on the successes of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, although I noted that it was also a success for conservative movement groups.

However, focus is beginning to shift. Maybe they didn't get what they wanted? The New York Times' John Broder notes that various groups lobbied the hell out of it. He focuses on the utilities:

The biggest concessions went to utilities, which wanted assurances that they could continue to operate and build coal-burning power plants without shouldering new costs. The utilities received not only tens of billions of dollars worth of free pollution permits, but also billions for work on technology to capture carbon-dioxide emissions from coal combustion to help meet future pollution targets.

By not auctioning these permits, Obama lost a huge amount of money for his earlier proposals. Donald Marron notes that this totals about $600b in revenue that this bill didn't create.

Now think about what Joe Lieberman said yesterday about the health care bill...

Lieberman cited the cost of a public plan as his primary beef with the plan.

"Part of my concern is that, and this goes to the…growing national debt, that inevitably if we create a public option, the public is going to end up pay for it and that's a cost we can't take on," he said.

If Obama had come out of this cap and trade debate with an extra $600b, the healthcare debate would look a lot -- A LOT -- different.

As the scope of the deficit becomes clearer and the political salience of it rises, the cap and trade bill may look like an increasingly poor deal for America, but also the rest of the Obama agenda.

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

The successes of the anti-cap-and-trade movement

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:02:18 -0700

I was struck on Thursday and Friday of last week by the extent to which activists on the right were deeply engaged on the Cap and Trade bill that narrowly passed the house last Friday.

The thing is, the media has not played this issue up. The same week that the House voted on the bill, President Barack Obama held a prime-time townhall on healthcare. Even the conservative media was mostly engaged primarily with the healthcare debate. Obama and the Democrats played and won the media cycle war.

But the conservative groups, especially Americans for Prosperity, and conservative blogs like Redstate and others kicked in. From both Republicans and Democrats, we heard about enormous call volume coming into the House. This provided a robust whip-like mechanism.

Activists understood that they were the difference between this bill passing and not.

Now the fight moves to the Senate. Already, we see Obama caving on key provisions of the deal that kept protectionist Democrats together. It is hard to see how the Democrats find the votes, especially when they need full support from the Midwest to keep their caucus together.

And next time, it is hard to see how the issue is kept under the radar. The American people will be much, much more deeply engaged.

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (4 votes)

Iran: Being on the side of the people

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:21:11 -0700

I am watching MSNBC's Morning Joe. Joe Scarborough is going off the rails by mischaracterizing John McCain's statement to the Huffington Post. McCain said:

"I know what side I'm on," McCain cut in. "I'm on the side of the people. I'm not on Ahmadinejad's side or Mousavi. I'm on the side of the Iranian people and I'm on the right side of history. And I'm not going to walk on the other side of the street while people are being killed and beaten in the streets of Iran."

This seems clearly the right answer. There is plenty of evidence that Mousavi is a thug. It is clear that Ahmadinajad is ... bad.

But you can be on the side of a process that empowers the people with honest elections.

McCain's point is that President Barack Obama called people getting beaten up and killed in the streets an "robust" "debate". Obama has no instinctual interest in defending human rights. This fundamental problem for Obama and much of the left was nicely characterized by EJ Dionne earlier this week in the Post.

That's something to be outraged about. Both sides are going off the rails on this issue.

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Where are the stories of tax fights?

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:14:22 -0700

The left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities released a report discussing tax increases. (H/T Derek Thompson at the Atlantic) They found that 36 states either have or are considering tax increases. Here's the picture:

Several observations on the list.

California and Florida budget fights have gotten national attention. For California, it was a bunch of ballot initiatives failing. In Florida, Governor Charlie Crist broke tax pledge by signing a number of tax increases, and this has become a rallying cry in the Senate primary.

Six states with Republican governors who are looking at their future are on the list of states that have done nothing. In Minnesota, Governor Tim Pawlenty is clearly looking at running for President. As are South Carolina's Mark Sanford and Alaska's Sarah Palin. Indiana's Mitch Daniels has been put out there and is being considered by some. And Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and Texas's Rick Perry (looking at a primary)

But what I want to know about is the state legislators that are fighting this stuff. Who are the articulate state legislators who are going on the radio and local TV, rallying against these tax increases. Those leaders are redefining the Republican party. They are rebranding the Republican Party by their actions. And they may be winning some of these fights.

Let's hear about them.

Average:

Your rating: None

Cuccinelli, Campaign for Liberty, and shifting GOP party politics

Sun, 31 May 2009 15:56:25 -0700

I have written a bunch about the role of Ron Paul supporters in the party and the impact that John McCain's military supporters may have. Yesterday, I went to the convention of the Republican Party of Virginia. The only seriously contested race was for the nomination for Attorney General. State Senator Ken Cuccinnelli, the candidate of grassroots conservatives, was the most likely winner, given who normally attends a state party convention. And indeed he won.

However, many people were shocked that he won on the first ballot over John Brownlee, former US Attorney, and Dave Foster, a Republican who sits on the Arlington County School Board. When I drove down to Richmond for the convention, I certainly did not expect that result either.

But when I got to the convention floor on Saturday, it was clear what was going on. The Virginia chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus had endorsed Cuccinelli. They were out in force. From eyeballing, people identified with either the Republican Liberty Caucus or the Campaign for Liberty seemed to be about 10-15% of the convention. They pushed Cuccinelli over the top. I think that this marks a pattern for the future of the GOP in smaller caucuses and conventions.

During the 2008 Republican Presidential primary, Paul supporters were highly organized and were able to effectively impact events smaller events like lower-profile caucuses. They got close to taking over state parties like Missouri, Nevada, and Idaho. Many more state parties were concerned with how to manage the situation. Ultimately, however, Ron Paul supporters did what you are supposed to do in politics. They brought new people to the process and organized them.

The question remained whether these outsiders would stay organized and be integrated into the GOP in some form.

This weekend in Richmond, they did. They found legitimate reasons to support the candidate whose supporters would probably constitute a near majority of a Virginia GOP convention anyways. Tom Tinker from the Campaign for Liberty used strong language:

I had the privielege of attending the VA Republican Convention this past weekend. Though I am usually wary of Republicans and their so-called "conservatism", I left the convention with a new hope for the restoration of Constitutional principles in my home state of Virginia. Bob McDonnell and Bill Bolling, the two nominees for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, are good candidates, and though wishy-washy when it comes to their conservatism, are far better than anyone the Democrats could put up. But the candidate for Virginia Attorny General, Ken Cuccinelli, restored my hope in the GOP, and should give all Virginians a hope for bringing our state back to Constitutional roots, both state and national. I will support him 100% these next few months, and I encourage you to do so.

A lot of people in Washington argue whether libertarians and social conservatives can be in the same party. Operationally, the activists were. And together they carried the day and shaped the GOP. Whether they represent a broader range of voters, we shall see. But the activists did execute this coalition. And RLC/CfL/Ron Paul supporters are likely to continue to hold an important swing role in party contests like this.

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Here comes the cavalry: McCain's military legacy for the party

Fri, 22 May 2009 05:22:05 -0700

A fundamental part of political campaigns is that they mobilize constituencies and groups. Presidential campaigns are particularly interesting because they bring like-minded people into networks across the country. The level of awareness is huge, so the size of the networks are huge. Much has been made of the Barry Goldwater organization which, until very recently, has been literally the core of the conservative movement. Much has also been made of the left-over organization of the Pat Robertson campaign, which became the Christian Coalition.

John McCain’s campaign may be found to have had a lasting impact that will be comparable to Goldwater's and Robertson's in the network of veterans, military families, and their allies, who came together around McCain and propelled his campaign, especially in the darkest times in the second half of 2007. At any McCain rally, you would encounter vets of all ages who had gotten involved in politics because of him. These guys are often conservative, but not quite as ideological as Republican activists, just as McCain was. Frankly, it was with this base of new people that allowed McCain to bypass state and county parties that despised him.

While McCain did not become President, a new group of activists have been brought into Republican politics. They know how to work together. They trust each other. They recognize their local and national leaders through 2 years of emails. And they have taken sides, already, in a number of state-level intra-party fights.

Let's mix this with something Patrick had suggested: one consequence of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be that we will have candidates for Congress, just as the Dems have been doing. My additional point is that there is a national organized and mobilized network that these candidates will have natural affinities with, regardless of ideology. This network may help propel these guys through primaries.

Let's look at where people are already happening.

In Idaho, Vaughn Ward, who was McCain state director in Nevada and has done some tours in Iraq, is running for Congress against Democrat Walt Minnick, who managed to defeat Republican Bill Sali in one of the most Republican districts in the country. In 2008, Sali almost lost a Republican primary to another Iraq vet, Matt Salisbury, even though Salisbury raised only 5-digits of money, while Sali was an incumbent.

In Colorado, there are several candidates running. In CO-04, you have Diggs Brown, a Fort Collins City Council member and ... Green Beret. Brown is on active duty, but has been around the district on a book tour. There is a draft movement. I have heard rumors of a couple of more, including at the Senate level.

In Illinois, Adam Kinzinger is running against Debbie Halverson. All indications on the ground are that he has been incredibly savvy early on, locking up key political and party support, in addition to donors. I have heard DC operatives express astonishment at how effective he has been early on.

In KS-3 there is John Rysavy. In OH-15 there is Steve Stivers. In GA-12, there is Wayne Mosley. And there are many more in the recruitment pipeline.

Average:

Your rating: None

Rule 11: Why Steele has no say on Crist

Sun, 17 May 2009 19:20:36 -0700

There were a series of questions about whether the RNC would endorse Arlen Specter. Michael Steele has been asked about endorsing Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. And now people are getting their underwear in a knot about Charlie Crist.

I hate to be super pedantic, but the RNC does not make the endorsement decision. A state's delegation to the Republican National Committee control that process. And Sharon Day, RNC Secretary and Florida Republican National Committeewoman, has refused to support an RNC endorsement:

Sharon Day, of Fort Lauderdale, who holds the post of national Republican committeewoman from Florida, refused Greer's request to sign a letter authorizing the national Republican Party to help Crist in the primary.

Party rules say the party must stay neutral in primaries unless all three members of the national committee from a state sign a letter authorizing the party to take sides. Greer, also a national committee member, and Paul Senft of Bartow, Florida's national committeeman, have both signed the letter.

This is the so-called "Rule 11".

Can we not play gotcha politics with Michael Steele and his endorsement of various candidates? The guy's hands are tied.

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Why fusionism makes sense

Sun, 10 May 2009 17:52:59 -0700

A lot of people ask whether fusionism -- libertarians and social conservatives joined in a political movement -- makes sense. It does, and there's a behavioral/sociological basis to it that Michael Gerson alludes to in his review of Robert Putnam's new book:

At a recent conference of journalists organized by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Putnam outlined the conclusions of "American Grace," based on research still being sifted and refined. Against the expectations of hard-core secularists, Putnam asserts, "religious Americans are nicer, happier and better citizens." They are more generous with their time and money, not only in giving to religious causes but to secular ones. They join more voluntary associations, attend more public meetings, even let people cut in line in front of them more readily. Religious Americans are three to four times more socially engaged than the unaffiliated. Ned Flanders is a better neighbor.

It doesn't stop there. Religious poeple live longer. Married people live longer too and make more money. I am not arguing causality, but co-occurence, which is all you need in a lot of political contexts.

Basically, religious people, on average, live lives more compatible with a libertarian economy message and system than others. Note the directionality on this. If a libertarian views their economic message (that is, they are what Europeans call "right-liberals", versus "left-liberals" who focus on social freedoms), then their most fertile ground for builing coalitions is with church-goers.

Thus fusionism.

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

AR GOP State Rep. Dan Greenberg has a better transparency idea

Thu, 07 May 2009 14:56:52 -0700

This is a follow-up to my last post. There are some ideas for transparency that seem much more reasonable to me. For example ...

Arkansan Republican legislator Dan Greenberg wants to make criminal background checks of government officials accessible to the public for a fee. His rationale:

To state the obvious, public officials occupy a unique position of power and trust. I do not think that a criminal record is in all cases a disqualifier for public service, but I do think it is something that the public is entitled to know. Some criminals are repeat offenders, and I suspect that the everyday person thinks that having open criminal records is good public policy. So when I first filed a bill that would make the criminal records of government officials public, I figured most people would think it's a good idea. And maybe it is: but most state legislators think differently.

But the Attorney General, the top law enforcement official in the state, thought it was a terrible idea:

Our Attorney General Dustin McDaniel (not to be confused with Steve Clark) also spoke against the bill; he said he thought the bill was too extensive — that letting the public do background checks on every "state legislator, Justice of the Peace and dogcatcher in Arkansas" granted too much access by too many people. We don't actually have elections for dogcatcher in Arkansas, but it was interesting to see him say publicly what I suspect some elected officials thought privately.

He even thought that he should "protect the privacy" of criminals. Even those who work for the government:

The bill finally made it out of committee but didn't fare so well on the floor. Attorney General McDaniel sent a letter to all legislators arguing that we should "protect the privacy" of criminals' public records. That didn't make much sense to me, but apparently it was more persuasive to others. When the vote was taken, government secrecy won and Freedom of Information lost; the bill failed 33-56.

I think that it would be great to know things like how many felons the Governor appointed. And how many felons work for the Attorney General. Doesn't that seem more relevant than what lobbyists people met?

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)