Month: August 2007

I think you’re seriously mistaken, Liz, in calling Al Franken “quite mad.” I’ve read some of his books and occasionally listened to his radio show, so I can kind of see how you would get that impression. But more importantly I’ve met him twice, once in late 2003 and just recently when he visited TPM. I can tell you that he is absolutely not a madman — he’s just made a career out of playing one on TV. And as the Minnesota Senate race progresses, you’re going to see a lot more of just how clever he actually is.

The latest polling shows Coleman just slightly ahead and under 50%, dragged down by Bush. And really, having the Republican National Convention in traditionally Democratic Minnesota could hurt him more than help.

Bottom line: I can see Coleman winning re-election, but I can also quite easily see Franken winning this one and actually being a pretty decent, wonkish Senator. The GOP will be making a big mistake if they underestimate him.

On 2008, my views are roughly as follows:

1. I don’t know that the GOP will lose the Presidency.  I think we’re at risk of it, certainly.  But, depending on who our nominee is, and how the next few months shake out, we may be able to hold it.

2. I think it is likely that we are going to lose a couple of Senate seats at least.  The GOP Senators I see as being at significant risk are John Sununu (hugely unfairly because if he loses, it will be punishment for Bush Republicanism, of which Sununu is about as representative as is Dianne Feinstein) and Norm Coleman (it is frightening to suggest that Al Franken might be capable of beating Coleman, but he’s exceptionally good at raising money and has a platform– and has anti-Republican sentiment swinging in his favor, even if he is quite mad).  I also do not think there is much chance of Bob Schaffer holding Wayne Allard’s seat when running against Mark Udall, given the way Colorado has been trending over the past five years (watch the map, it’s been getting steadily more blue, to the point I don’t think it’s accurate to call it a red state anymore– and Schaffer isn’t exactly a moderate, the kind of Republican who maybe could survive such circumstances).  Depending on whether or not John Warner runs for re-election here in Virginia, we may or may not have a decent chance of holding the seat.  The advantage is, if John Warner runs, Mark Warner may not.  But if John Warner doesn’t run, Mark Warner probably will– and then it’s probably down to a fight between him and Tom Davis which I think either could win, but which will be very close.

3. In the House, I can see Republicans winning back and/or picking up a few seats (these might include CA-11, NY-20, FL-16, GA-8, KS-2, PA-10, TX-22, IN-9, OH-18, NH-1, PA-4 and maybe even one of the lost CT seats).  However, that still doesn’t get us to a majority, and the GOP will still have to worry about holding seats like NM-1, WA-8, OH-15, IL-10 , PA-6, NV-3 and CO-4 (the latter of which, I’ll be blunt, is like last year’s PA-Sen race– I won’t cry much if that goes; that’s very much unlike WA-8, OH-15 and IL-10).

That’s how I see this playing out.

According to Charlie Cook, there is only one toss-up House seat in the whole country at this moment. Larry Sabato says there are seven competitive Senate seats–five Republican and two Democratic. This suggests that big Democratic gains are unlikely. Furthermore, Sabato warns that as the perception becomes more widespread that the Democrats will win the White House, it could help Republicans in congressional elections. As he explains:

"In modern times, Americans have often built in an additional check and balance undreamt of by the Founders. They prefer divided party control of the White House and the Congress so that no party holds sway, and the politicians will all oversee and limit one another. Maybe Bush and Iraq are enough to elect Democrats across the board in ’08. Or maybe the Democratic edge in the national legislature is a hidden card that the Republican presidential nominee will be able to play in what may be an uphill battle to secure the White House for a third consecutive GOP term."

This is why I think it is important for Republicans to be realistic about their White House chances. If they accept that 2008 isn’t their year at the presidential level, they may still be able to salvage something at the congressional level.

I think we’re all in agreement that the Republicans will almost certainly lose next year. How extensive do all of you think it will be? I’m talking about not only the White House but also the Senate, the House, and other races throughout the states. Any predictions?

In an earlier post, I suggested that on balance state and local tax systems are about as progressive as the federal system. This is probably not right. The only data I could find says that state and local systems are mildly regressive. Income taxes are progressive, property taxes largely proportional for most people, but sales and excise taxes are highly regressive. I have doubts about these data, however, because they exclude the elderly, which often benefit from special tax breaks at the state and local level.

My point about the steep progressivity of the federal tax system still holds. Here is another data source that confirms those in the CBO report I referenced earlier.

Note: On another point, I am informed that partnerships are not a subset of contract law, as I erroneously posted earlier, but of agency law.

Wow, the news these days is sure offering me little opportunity to diversify my writing without simultaneously ignoring two of my favorite topics (nanny/surveillance-stateism and Mitt Romney).  From the NY Times today, we learn that it’s not just banning smoking and licensing photography on the minds of the elected officials of Gotham, but also banning mean words.

Apparently, the NYC City Council banned the n-word earlier this year.  Now, some of its members want to ban the word for a female dog that starts with "b."  The argument behind the proposed ban is that "The term is hateful and deeply sexist, said Councilwoman Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn, who has introduced a measure against the word, saying it creates ‘a paradigm of shame and indignity’ for all women."

First, let me say that I’ve been called the "b" word plenty of times in my life.  I can’t think of a single time when I’ve felt hated, shamed, or as if my dignity were being stripped.  Actually, in the world of corporate law, being called the "b" word by an adversary was, well, a compliment, because among other things, it showed how whiny and pathetic the person who said it, who presumably failed to get their way on some point or other, truly was– while simultaneously indicating my own effectiveness.  But I digress.

Friends know that I’m a ridiculously politically-correct person. I physically bristle when I hear the "n" word used, even in, say, a Kanye West song (so I listen to little rap, and don’t allow a lot of it in my house).  I hate terms like that word.  And even though I don’t really hate the "b" word, I can understand why it’s offensive to a lot of women (if not me personally)– and I absolutely can understand why the "h" word (ends in "o") is offensive to a lot of women– if I were called that, I probably would go ballistic.

Still, the members of the NYC City Council who are pursuing this ban seem to have forgotten three fundamental things: first, we have a First Amendment in this country, and on a strict interpretation at least, it should cover the use of words like these, offensive as they may be; second, what lawmakers should be concerning themselves with is protecting the public from actual violence– not hurt feelings or a sense of degradation; and third, bans like this haven’t tended to work well in other contexts.

Oh yes, those backing this plan will say (I have no doubt), but using words like these degrades women (or African-Americans) making them all the more susceptible to violent behavior because it dehumanizes them.  But there is degrading, and then there’s dehumanizing.  Degrading is something that isn’t very nice, but ultimately, is behavior that by any reasonable assessment is not going to pave the way for mass lynchings, widespread gang rape, or efforts to murder an entire group.  Dehumanizing, on a grand scale, may, possibly, arguably, lead to these things, but merely slinging around nasty, mean, and offensive words is not the first step towards the Fourth Reich.  And it’s sad that those backing this bill seem to think that bad words being used is so serious as to warrant anti-First Amendment legislative action– something we should always be very reluctant to pursue.

With a bit of luck, since only 19 out of 51 council members are backing this plan, it will be shot down in flames.  And maybe in time the person sponsoring it will develop a thicker skin, and a recognition that government isn’t an appropriate way of stopping objectionable, but essentially benign, behavior. But, based on the way things seem to be going in NYC these days, I wouldn’t count on it.

www.lizmair.com

As Ron Gunzburger pointed out, Alan Keyes has apparently been operating his own draft site for a while now. And now it seems there will be some Keyes volunteers (read: Keyes relatives) headed to Ames for the straw poll. Will somebody just commit this man, already?

Although I have to admit I’d like to see a presidential campaign of Barack Obama re-matched with Alan Keyes. It would be a 70%-27% race all over again.

There has been some discussion on various blogs lately about the political consequences of rising Hispanic immigration and a Hispanic-American population. National Review‘s David Frum frets that Hispanics’ liberal tendencies will aid the Democrats and push them further to the left. Ezra Klein of the American Prospect, looking at the question from the left, celebrates the same trend. Megan McArdle tells Republicans not to worry too much because immigrant groups historically have become more conservative over time. (By the way, it appears that she is joining this organization shortly.)

This gives me the opportunity to promote my new book, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past. One of the arguments I make in it is that the immigration issue opens some door for Republicans in the black community. Polls show that blacks largely share Republicans’ concerns about Hispanic immigration. Blacks view Hispanics as rivals for jobs and housing. It stands to reason that they will increasingly become political rivals as well.

I suggest that with blacks and Hispanics both being part of the Democratic coalition, the party will tend to side with the Hispanics down the road because they are a larger and faster growing population group. As blacks begin to perceive this, they could become receptive to Republican outreach if the party is smart enough to make the effort. If, as I have said earlier, the Democrats will almost certainly win next year, such an idea may become attractive in 2009.

I thought it was interesting that the only Republican to attend the NAACP’s candidate forum on July 12 was Congressman Tom Tancredo, whose principal issue is sealing the border and deporting all illegal immigrants. His anti-immigrant message got a very respectful hearing from the NAACP delegates and well more than a polite round of applause.

My purpose is not to defend immigrant-bashing or suggest that it is good politics. But if the Republicans are going to go down that road, they might as well get whatever value there is in it insofar as it creates opportunities to attract voters in sympathy with that viewpoint. I think the black community could be a ripe target.

This YouTube was put up by an account called “gaysforgiuliani.”

Something tells me they’re not actually trying to help him.