New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

John McCain has all the national security credentials he needs. He was one of the few to stand up to the failed Iraq policy and to question the Bush administration; he can be partially credited with the succesful change in policy we see today. While McCain also has a good reputation on spending, his economic qualifications (not that Obama’s or Hillary’s are noteworthy) are lacking.
Mitt Romney, a man who I see as an ideal candidate for his Vice Presidential pick (I of course did support his bid for president), has the economic qualifications that McCain needs on the ticket with him. Of course,
McCain is already known to the American people as someone who is a hero, tough on spending, and right on Iraq. Romney over the course of the last 8 months is someone who has built tremendous name recognition and many are now aware of his accomplishments in business, as the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic chairman, and as Governor of the State of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney should be John McCain’s running mate in his November presidential bid.

There are several qualifications that McCain’s running mate will need to satisfy:

1. Executive
2. True Conservative
3. Bring in additional states
4. Have a strong base of support
5. Be media tested

1. McCain needs to pick an executive for his running mate. I would be hard pressed to find a person more experienced (perhaps General David Patreaus in Iraq, but it is rumored he is planning for a run after 2012) than Governor Romney. Romney was of course the lead consultant for Bain Capital, then the manager of their investment fund, the chairman of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics (where he turned a $500+ deficit into a $300 million surplus), and Governor of Massachusetts. As Jim Cramer said, “Romney is the best business man in North America.” That is quite a statement coming from Cramer and that kind of language speaks volumes about his expertise in dealing with the economy. No one could argue with what a job he did in Utah’s Olympics where he is still to this day hailed as a hero (to understand why, research the financial disasters that typically follow Olympics such as in Atlanta, Athens, etc…). An associate I know who is an active member of the US Olympic Committee, former Gold Medal champion, and Hillary Clinton supporter even admitted to me that Governor Romney was one of the most professional individuals she ever worked with. Coming from someone across the aisle, that is something that should also speak volumes about his leadership ability. While his time in Massachusetts was short, he did manage to energize the economy, pass education reform, balance the budget, and is the only Governor in the Union to have addressed healthcare. His healthcare plan is far from perfect, but two things should be noted. A-he was a Republican elected in Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the country. B-He was successful in legislating in the state. This is significant because one of the primary jobs of the VP is to act in the Senate as a representative for the administration in power (and of course break tied votes). Romney has proven that he is capable of running the country in the event that something happens to McCain, and also that he can perform all of the tasks required of a Vice President with tremendous skill.

2. John McCain needs to pick a true conservative to be his Vice Presidential candidate. There are some who claim that Romney was a flip-flopper, or that he lacked “social conservative” credentials, but in the last days of the campaign it became apparent that he was whole heartedly accepted by the conservative movement in the party. He is the only prominent Republican who can ensure that the powerful “wall street conservatives” do not stray to the left and fundraise for either Obama or Hillary. Romney has been a strong fiscal conservative all his career and despite what he said in his 1992 senatorial bid against Ted Kennedy (the strongest opponent Kennedy has yet faced), Romney did com down on the “right” side of life while he was Governor of Massachusetts. Aside from Newt Gingrich , I cannot think of a more prominent conservative; but again like many strong conservatives, Gingrich lacks the vital executive experience that Romney carriers. McCain and his Vice Presidential Search Committee will be hard pressed to find any prominent conservative as qualified as Mitt Romney.

3. Mitt Romney won by overwhelming margins in Wyoming, Utah, and many other strongly conservative states during the primary season. I have been to three western states since Christmas (Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho) and I noticed that almost every Republican I encountered in all three states were Romney supporters. Additionally, Mitt Romney worked very hard to strengthen his social conservative message in evangelical states during the primary season and it is doubtful that he will have much more convincing to do. He and Mike Huckabee were the two candidates fighting over the socially conservative voters, but Huckabee lacks the important ability to also court true fiscal conservatives at the same time. It should be important to note that Romney had the best record in attracting a broad range of self identified conservatives in the primary season, Romney is one of the only men who has the ability to repair the coalition that Ronald Reagan built. Governor Romney also was of course the Governor of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the country. That in itself is a feat that the McCain campaign should examine closely, I doubt that there are too many other individuals who could perform as well in both conservative states and liberal ones as Mitt Romney. His 1992 senatorial bid against Ted Kennedy was also one of the most difficult fights Kennedy has ever faced in his long standing Senatorial career. While McCain can attract many independents in the next election, he will need someone like Romney to garner the support of the parties true conservatives. Unless Bloomberg had entered this race, there is not another executive in the country aside from Mitt Romney with the ability to get overwhelming support of the business vote. Romney can attract the conservative votes that McCain needs in November and for that reason alone he should be on McCain’s short list.

4. Mitt Romney already has a strong base of support. At the end of his presidential bid, Romney was hailed as a true conservative at CPAC2008 and there were literally tears in the room when he announced with withdrawal from the race. Romney did manage to correct his message at the end of the campaign to that of the “economic leader” and “business expert”, he was the one who could “bring change to Washington.” It is clear that Romney has the support of many conservatives in the party who are still hesitant of McCain. If McCain wants to sure up these votes, he should turn to Romney. Romney also has one of the best campaign teams ever assembled. It is no secret that he is most likely planning a ‘12 run (a source close to Romney has confirmed that to me in an email), and that is ready to go on a moments notice because of his continued political aspirations. Romney’s campaign team would be a tremendous asset to McCain (someone who is a notoriously bad campaigner). The key to Romney’s campaign team is also his finance staff led by Spencer Zwick , one of the most talented fundraisers in the GOP. Of course, the amount of money Romney raised pales in comparison to that of the Democratic candidates, but even without his own personal contributions his financing ability vastly outstripped all of his Republican rivals. The Bush administration is also pushing for an M&M ticket. While this fact may deter some who fear connections with Bush as a possible hinderance in the next election, it is important to remember that Karl Rove, perhaps the greatest campaign strategist alive is not only a strong proponent of the ticket, but is also a McCain advisor. If the ticket did not provide the best possible means for a Republican victory, I doubt Rove would be calling for it.

5. Like John McCain, Mitt Romney is media tested. He faced a brutal race with demeaning attack ads when he ran against Ted Kennedy’s political machine in 1992. He had to fight an uphill battle for his gubernatorial race in Massachusetts, and he won. He also faced much scrutiny against John McCain and the other Republican rivals during the primary season. Many claimed he was the best debater of the GOP nominees and with the exception of Barrack Obama, he certainly had the best TV presence of anyone on either side of the race. While there may be many other conservatives in the race who have good records, none of them have the spotless personal record that Romney has and very few people in the country have the media exposure that he possesses. Romney is cool in front of the camera, that is another trait the McCain campaign should look upon very favorably.

Mitt Romney satisfies all of the qualifications to be President of the United States, let alone a running mate. If it were not the personal dislike between McCain and Governor Romney, the ticket would be obvious and it would already be solidified. Yet, these are two adults who have spent the last twenty fives years of their lives negotiating (legislating for McCain, business for Romney) and who both know how to put past differences behind them. After spending years in the Hanoi Hilton, I believe that Senator McCain can forgive Romney for the policy attack ads he ran against him in the primary states. Whatever personal reasons McCain has for disliking Mitt Romney he needs to overcome them. For the future of the free world, these two men should be able to overcome their personal squabbles, if not-perhaps neither are fit to sit in the oval office.

Popularity: 52% [?]

One of the best political shows on television was MSNBC’s Tucker, a witty, hilarious, and accurate hour long talk show every day at 6 PM on MSNBC. According to the morons at Crooks and Liars, “Carlson will remain at MSNBC as a contributor for the time being, but at last, there’s a chance we’ll see a reality based, progressive show in that time slot.”-Oh great, another “progressive” show to go along with the socialist propaganda that is Keither Olberman. The article continues to say, “Rumor has it Air America Radio’s Rachel Maddow is working on a show for the network — we can only hope she gets her shot. She’s earned it.” The thought of Rachel Maddow, on the air instead of Tucker Carlson is enough to make me sick; it would be just like NBC (a network that can basically take responsibility for getting Obama elected) to cancel a unique and non-polarizing voice among a sea of partisans who work on cable news.
In any case, I (like many people) want a talking head that isn’t a yes man to either the far left or the far right. Of course, this is what we have come to expect from cable news network; perhaps at least Tucker could move to a network that won’t fire him for having views that don’t align with Olberman and Abrams, Fox do yourself a favor and give Tucker a call.

Popularity: 33% [?]

In his first victory since Democratic Rival Hillary Clinton’s big wins in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, Barack Obama won the Wyoming Democratic Caucus. Although the state has only 18 delegates, the victory is substantial for Obama in terms of media appearance. The Clinton campaign, long marked for its talent at spin, has been lauding their recent victories as a “change in momentum,” for the campaign. Despite Obama’s more forceful presence in the state (opening up 5 offices to the Clinton campaign’s 2), the Clinton campaign put much energy in trying to prevent a victory, sending both the Spouse (Bill) and the Spawn (Chelsea) into the state on Thursday. However, Obama’s early presence seems to have paid off, with a 23 percent lead over Clinton, and a seven delegate gain. However, this win is just a stop on the way to the more significant competition in Pennsylvania in April.

Popularity: 29% [?]

One of the reasons Steven Landsburg, a professor of economics from the University of Rochester, is one of my favorite economists around today is because he writes articles like the one he wrote this week called, The Case for Foreclosures. Here is part of his explanation:

I predict with great confidence that when I say that foreclosures create new homeowners, a sizable chunk of my readers will scoff that “the people who can afford them would have been able to afford nice homes anyway.” I could use economics to explain why those readers are mistaken (a glut of homes on the market leads to falling prices, etc.), but that’s unnecessarily complicated. All it takes is the simple observation that there cannot be more homeowners than there are homes, and if one home becomes vacant, then there can be one new homeowner. Call it the law of conservation of homes.

Its nothing more than a logical consequence of the price system that as people cannot pay their mortgages and demand goes down, prices will also go down to compensate and reestablish equilibrium in the housing market. The alternative, such as a freeze in foreclosures or interest rates as proposed by Hilary Clinton, could not change the fact that many residents cannot afford to pay their mortgages under the presently readjusted, the peril of which would be that more lenders would go bankrupt and less lenders would be able to initiate new mortgages for buyers looking to purchase homes on the market at reduced market prices.

Indeed it is contrarian to encourage foreclosures, but that’s not exactly what Landsburg is doing; Landsburg is, in reality, encouraging market forces and the price system as a means of achieving the optimal outcome in a below-average situation and warning against the unintended and unseen consequences of manipulating those natural forces. Indeed, much of my blogging on economics aspires to have the same effect whereby it defeats anti-market conventional wisdom by enumerating all the possibly hidden or misunderstood effects of anti-market policies.

Hahvahd professor Greg Mankiw also pointed out that it should come as no surprise that such an economist would be making a case for something as indefensible and callous as home foreclosure, considering he has also praised Ebenezer Scrooge. Of course this too sounds unfathomable considering the way the very name has become a household admonishment on any individual accused of selfishness.

In this whole world, there is nobody more generous than the miser—the man who could deplete the world’s resources but chooses not to. The only difference between miserliness and philanthropy is that the philanthropist serves a favored few while the miser spreads his largess far and wide.

In many ways his approbation of the miser is not only a approbation of the classical principles of savings and thrift, but also a rebuke of consumptionist-Keynsian thought. Either way, it is particularly brilliant in the tradition of “pop economics,” which dates back to Fredric Bastiat and Henry Hazlitt, for looking at “that which is seen, and that which is unseen.”

Today, popular economics has reached its apex, namely in the fame of the book Freakonomics. But what most don’t recall is that in modern times, before there was Steven Levitt–or anyone else for that matter–there was Steven Landsburg who wrote The Armchair Economist written in the late ’80s with a greater emphasis on logic, incentives, and larger economic trends, compared with Levitt’s nuanced microeconomic empiricism.

Finally, I found this video of Professor Landsburg on John Gibson’s Fox News show from a couple of years ago. He was brought on to talk about trade and a rising protectionist inclination among the American people, and in the face of those sentiments he makes the case that protectionism is xenophobic, irrational, and not dissimilar to racism. The exchange is heated but Landsburg sufficiently owns Gibson on his own show. And with trade and NAFTA emerging as a leading issue in this campaign cycle, the video is particularly relevant.

You can watch it by clicking the link directly below:

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 50% [?]

Just before 1 am EST, with 75% reporting and a margin of 3%, NBC News calls Texas for Senator Clinton.

So the final popular count for the night is three states for Clinton and one for Obama, with both big states going to Clinton. And even though this popular vote does not include the caucus results nor the TX delegate count, both of which will probably go to Obama some time next week, it is a moral victory for Clinton and will give her momentum going forward.

Next big stop is Pennsylvania on April 22.

The complete schedule can be seen on the linked article above.

This campaign is far from over. Its exciting and historic. And, if we’re lucky, it will go all the way to the August convention in Denver…

Popularity: 35% [?]

While Hillary Clinton ended her 12 state losing streak with victory in Rhode Island, the highly prized popular votes tonight in Texas and Ohio were still up for grabs.

But just recently, Ohio was called for Hillary before the 23rd hour on this Super Tuesday. With over 50% reporting a current margin of about 15%, her victory is pretty robust despite the state’s voting complications today.

(ADDENDUM:) Currently, to preempt any momentum change from a possible Obama victory in Texas, Sen. Clinton is making a victory speech in Ohio at this hour. The idea is to marginalize what is currently a close, and confusing, vote in Texas. Either way, now that she has won Ohio, I think there is no way that she will drop out before the Pennsylvania primary in April, where polling and the blue collar demographic similar to Ohio is favorable to her.

Additionally, here are the exit polls for Texas which look slightly better for Sen. Clinton. With more than half of precincts reporting the vote count is about tied, but Clinton’s numbers have been accelerating. Caucus numbers are expected to come in a little later, but it is expected that Obama will win a majority of the Texas caucus goers by enough of a margin such that he wins more actual delegates from the state even if Hillary wins the popular vote.

The minimal requirement of the night was met for Hillary Clinton, now, if she could pull out a popular victory in Texas she could meet a second milestone and perhaps capture overall momentum in this turbulent campaign.

Popularity: 33% [?]

With projected victory in OH, TX, RI, and VT tonight John McCain is expected to become the official nominee by surpassing 1,191 delegates necessary to secure the nomination.

As soon as tomorrow, the AZ Senator is expected to be endorsed in person by Huckabee, President Bush, and the Republican National Committee. The White House has indicated that the President would also like to campaign on the trail with McCain. This raises an interesting question: how desirable the active support of Bush is to McCain considering his approval stands at little more than 30%?

To be sure the President could help with massive fundraising–which has been a weekness for McCain and other Republicans–and also help with the conservative base–which is also a weakness for McCain. That being said, so much Bush could only help so much for the moderate conservative who will need to appeal to independents in 2008 in the face of general Republican unpopularity. Time will tell how the campaign strikes the delacate balance.

Popularity: 31% [?]

Here are Ohio exit polls which generally seem to indicate good news for Senator Clinton.

Additionally, there has been a shortage of ballots reported in 15 Democratic precincts indicating a very large turnout. Consequently, a judge has approved an motion from the Obama camp to keep polls open due to this and poor weather that the state experienced today. Here is the story.

Texas results will be coming in within half an hour.

Popularity: 27% [?]

At 7 pm EST, the time polls closed in Vermont, sources predict Obama to win the state of Vermont. It comes as no surprise considering Vermont is one of the most liberal states in the union. Contrary to most states, the Iraq war was tied for the most important issue with the Economy, and Obama won by a lot among voters who identified with the Iraq issue (exit polls). While this victory is no surprise, it is interesting to note that Obama could net more delegates from Vermont (winning +5, if he ends up with 65% of the vote) than Clinton could if she won a narrow victory in Ohio.

Polls just closed in Ohio, where McCain was declared the victor while its too close to call on the other end. Polls had Hillary up by about 7 pts in the poll averages, in large part due to the fact that it is a blue collar state with large economic concerns, although the latest Zogby poll says the race is tied.

Texas polls close at 9 pm EST, and polls indicate the Dem race is razor close there. While Obama pulled ahead in the averages in the past two weeks, Clinton seems to have wrestle that slim lead back from him. She appears to be up by about 2 percentage pts. Because of the mix of caucuses and primary in Texas, Obama is expected to win the Texas delegate count, but the popular vote is up for grabs and has a particular momentum value for the campaigns.

Rhode Island has 35 delegates, the majority of whom are anticipated to go to Sen. Clinton.

Meanwhile, on the GOP side, John McCain has already wrapped up VT and OH. The big test for the GOP tonight is whether McCain will win enough votes to wrap up the official nomination tonight.

NSP will have coverage throughout the night, so stay tuned.

Popularity: 32% [?]

Since the “Yes, We Can” music video has become somewhat of an internet hit at DipDive, Will.I.Am has chartered a new video called “We Are The Ones,” which to me appears to be even more inane and idolizing than the first. Whenever I discuss with others how bizarre these videos are, they make point to mention that they are not sanctioned by the Obama campaign as if that absolves him. But, actually, the fact that the video was not his campaign’s doing is perhaps even more frightening than otherwise. Powerful politicians are supposed to have their own heroic self-image, but when others start buying into their messianic self-regard is when it ceases to be cute and becomes, instead, just frightening. For when voters begin viewing any public figure as transcendent, it gives them free reign to as they wish politically, with less and less opposition.

You can see the video by clicking the link below:

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 42% [?]