Henry Waxman

In the wake of the Massachusetts Miracle we have achieved far more than even I dreamed possible. I had hoped for a serious scare and some recriminations on the part of the Democrats, not a shattering of party unity and confidence.  

Now what?

Well, I'm told that the GOP is going to "fight everywhere" this year. But not all fights are created equal.  Barring cash in an incumbent's  freezer, once a district gets to D+20 CPVI there's really no path to a Republican victory. And while some back bench incumbents may be weak reeds, it's rather likely that unlike Martha Coakley, they will go down quietly and with little notice from the public. A Zack Space meltdown in Zanesville, OH is not likely to make the national wires.

What the GOP should set aside some resources for is to call out the loudest, most partisan and least appealing leaders of the Democratic senate and house caucuses.  We know who they are. They are the ones who react like stuck pigs to being challenged. They are the ones whom we can readily point to a paper trail of advocacy for deficits, government intervention, and crony dealing.   And these are the people whom we can readily define as the Democratic party for swing voters.   

By their vociferous counterattacks, they will do our job of defining the opposition for us.  Their colleagues in swing districts and purple states will try to win their re-elections based on incumbency and alleged centrism; this plan is designed to make that strategy unworkable for any Democrat.

Some of these people are already "on the list"--Harry Reid and John Murtha.  My plan is to wxpand the list to folks in D+10 plus constituencies, since in the wake of Scott Brown, these seats are no longer locks in the present environment.

The chances that any of these seats actually "flip" to the GOP is still remote. I believe the recruitment of serious candidates and the allocation of resources is still wise for a number of reasons. It will drive the narrative in less high profile seats and force moderates to defend the leadership party line. It will conversely, cause the Democrats to hoard their cash to play defense and cause them to triage their less senior members in swing seats.  Finally, since these folks are easily identified villains to the Right, there's the possibility to drop moneybombs in these places.

Here's my list:

Chuck Schumer

Schumer defeated an obscure GOP assemblyman badly in 2004 in what was a non-campaign. Since then he's been enbolden to play partisan bomb thrower and is one of the  happiest Democrats to lambaste "teabaggers" for the temerity to question Washington.  Schumer is probably one of the most anti-gun and pro-abortion politicians ever elected to office, and has treated Wall Street as an ATM for his campaign warchest. Needless to say this isn't quite the agenda every New Yorker applauds--his recent poll ratings have slipped.

Schumer is still a heavy favorite, but two things make this more than an exercise in wish fulfillment. First is Schumer' arrogance, which may remind voters of disgraced former Governor Eliot Spitzer. Second is the demographics of the off-year NY electorate, where Upstate casts a higher percentage of the vote--indeed, nearly half.

Larry Kudlow (whom I thought was still a CT resident) is thinking about this race. But has anyone thought that an upstater associated with the Tea Party--like Doug Hoffman--might send Chuck into orbit?   

Steny Hoyer

Hoyer is Nancy Pelosi's second in command. Unlike San Fran Nan, he actually represents some Republicans in his suburban Maryland district which is only D+11.   As it is in the Washington, DC media market it's not a cheap district to run in, but any misstep by Hoyer will be promptly reported by the national press.  Hoyer will have to explain his party's agenda in a district which contains many of the same sort of outer suburban communities that were Scott Brown strongholds in MA. Good luck, Steny.

Barney Frank

Chris Dodd is gone, but the other architect of the ruinous subprime mortgage bubble, Barney Frank, thinks he's going to coast to re-election. Perhaps he'd best look at the voting results in MA 4 as it appears his district was carried by Scott Brown.  MA 4 is a D+14 district but it is a gerrymandered mess which includes areaas far from Frank's base inside Route 128. These communities--even the blue collar ones--turned hard against the Democrats in the special election.

I'll explain in more detail, but the key to making this seat truly competitive is candidate recruitment and pushing aside a perennial candidate who simply doesn't "fit" this district in favor of one who could peel off a critical region from Frank.  

Henry Waxman

Henry Waxman is probably the one member of Congress most directly responsible for the decline of America's industrial vigor.  As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee he is single handedly responsible for pressing forward on a multifront regime of regulation and government edicts.   He also was foursquare for the government takeover of health care enbodied in the House's "public option" bill.

His district includes Hollywood, Beverly Hills and Malibu so we can be sure the entertainment industry will shell out to give him around. That said, money he gets can't go to Indiana or new Jersey.  His district also now includes large chunks of the San Fernando Valley where a political agenda based on middle class concerns might well receive a receptive response. 

It's pretty clear we would need a very libertarian minded candidate to get an audience here. That said, a "cool" Republican would draw attention to the party and draw attention away from older socially conservative white men in the Red States. And a credible campaign against Waxman--inagine Republican lawn signs on Brentwood hillsides--would be magnified in the national media.

I cna think of less notorious Democrats like New York's Gary Ackerman or CT's Rosa DeLauro who have baggage, atropried campaign skills and districts with appreciable Republican activity. But the bigger point here is to draw out the loudest and least  persuasive advocates for Democratic control of government.

The Democrats made sure they got Jesse Helms a tough race every cycle hoping for a meltdown. Now it's our turn.   

In the wake of the Massachusetts Miracle we have achieved far more than even I dreamed possible. I had hoped for a serious scare and some recriminations on the part of the Democrats, not a shattering of party unity and confidence.  

Now what?

Well, I'm told that the GOP is going to "fight everywhere" this year. But not all fights are created equal.  Barring cash in an incumbent's  freezer, once a district gets to D+20 CPVI there's really no path to a Republican victory. And while some back bench incumbents may be weak reeds, it's rather likely that unlike Martha Coakley, they will go down quietly and with little notice from the public. A Zack Space meltdown in Zanesville, OH is not likely to make the national wires.

What the GOP should set aside some resources for is to call out the loudest, most partisan and least appealing leaders of the Democratic senate and house caucuses.  We know who they are. They are the ones who react like stuck pigs to being challenged. They are the ones whom we can readily point to a paper trail of advocacy for deficits, government intervention, and crony dealing.   And these are the people whom we can readily define as the Democratic party for swing voters.   

By their vociferous counterattacks, they will do our job of defining the opposition for us.  Their colleagues in swing districts and purple states will try to win their re-elections based on incumbency and alleged centrism; this plan is designed to make that strategy unworkable for any Democrat.

Some of these people are already "on the list"--Harry Reid and John Murtha.  My plan is to wxpand the list to folks in D+10 plus constituencies, since in the wake of Scott Brown, these seats are no longer locks in the present environment.

The chances that any of these seats actually "flip" to the GOP is still remote. I believe the recruitment of serious candidates and the allocation of resources is still wise for a number of reasons. It will drive the narrative in less high profile seats and force moderates to defend the leadership party line. It will conversely, cause the Democrats to hoard their cash to play defense and cause them to triage their less senior members in swing seats.  Finally, since these folks are easily identified villains to the Right, there's the possibility to drop moneybombs in these places.

Here's my list:

Chuck Schumer

Schumer defeated an obscure GOP assemblyman badly in 2004 in what was a non-campaign. Since then he's been enbolden to play partisan bomb thrower and is one of the  happiest Democrats to lambaste "teabaggers" for the temerity to question Washington.  Schumer is probably one of the most anti-gun and pro-abortion politicians ever elected to office, and has treated Wall Street as an ATM for his campaign warchest. Needless to say this isn't quite the agenda every New Yorker applauds--his recent poll ratings have slipped.

Schumer is still a heavy favorite, but two things make this more than an exercise in wish fulfillment. First is Schumer' arrogance, which may remind voters of disgraced former Governor Eliot Spitzer. Second is the demographics of the off-year NY electorate, where Upstate casts a higher percentage of the vote--indeed, nearly half.

Larry Kudlow (whom I thought was still a CT resident) is thinking about this race. But has anyone thought that an upstater associated with the Tea Party--like Doug Hoffman--might send Chuck into orbit?   

Steny Hoyer

Hoyer is Nancy Pelosi's second in command. Unlike San Fran Nan, he actually represents some Republicans in his suburban Maryland district which is only D+11.   As it is in the Washington, DC media market it's not a cheap district to run in, but any misstep by Hoyer will be promptly reported by the national press.  Hoyer will have to explain his party's agenda in a district which contains many of the same sort of outer suburban communities that were Scott Brown strongholds in MA. Good luck, Steny.

Barney Frank

Chris Dodd is gone, but the other architect of the ruinous subprime mortgage bubble, Barney Frank, thinks he's going to coast to re-election. Perhaps he'd best look at the voting results in MA 4 as it appears his district was carried by Scott Brown.  MA 4 is a D+14 district but it is a gerrymandered mess which includes areaas far from Frank's base inside Route 128. These communities--even the blue collar ones--turned hard against the Democrats in the special election.

I'll explain in more detail, but the key to making this seat truly competitive is candidate recruitment and pushing aside a perennial candidate who simply doesn't "fit" this district in favor of one who could peel off a critical region from Frank.  

Henry Waxman

Henry Waxman is probably the one member of Congress most directly responsible for the decline of America's industrial vigor.  As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee he is single handedly responsible for pressing forward on a multifront regime of regulation and government edicts.   He also was foursquare for the government takeover of health care enbodied in the House's "public option" bill.

His district includes Hollywood, Beverly Hills and Malibu so we can be sure the entertainment industry will shell out to give him around. That said, money he gets can't go to Indiana or new Jersey.  His district also now includes large chunks of the San Fernando Valley where a political agenda based on middle class concerns might well receive a receptive response. 

It's pretty clear we would need a very libertarian minded candidate to get an audience here. That said, a "cool" Republican would draw attention to the party and draw attention away from older socially conservative white men in the Red States. And a credible campaign against Waxman--inagine Republican lawn signs on Brentwood hillsides--would be magnified in the national media.

I cna think of less notorious Democrats like New York's Gary Ackerman or CT's Rosa DeLauro who have baggage, atropried campaign skills and districts with appreciable Republican activity. But the bigger point here is to draw out the loudest and least  persuasive advocates for Democratic control of government.

The Democrats made sure they got Jesse Helms a tough race every cycle hoping for a meltdown. Now it's our turn.   

Jon Henke is obviously a more astute analyst than moi, so I post this with some angst. But I think he is thinking along the lines of French military strategists after World War I,

As historians recall, France was bled dry from fighting a trench war deep in its own terrain. So apres guerre the French decided to build high tech fortifications-- the Maginot Line--along their frontier to cause the war to be fought on the German side of the border and on  French terms.

By 1940, of course, the Me 109 and the Stuka proved to be well able to fly over fortifications and destroy French forces from the air. Oops.

I fear we may be doing to same thing by trying a new and improved strategy to deal with "climate change".  Both the ambient and political climate may not be what we expect.

First, there are two central flaws with the Republicans becoming the champions of carbon taxation. First, it muddles the party's anti-tax message. It's easily trumped politically by the advocacy of economically delusional class warfare.  Instead of arguing taxes in general ought to be reduced or kept from rising, we are left bargaining over what taxes to raise. Is that an argument that is going to win elections?   

Secondly, if the carbon tax works it will generate progressively less revenue. Since I think the "starve the beast" strategy has pretty well been proved to be a failure in practice (expecting a long term libertarian control for Congress is daft) the result will be progressively higher deficits and demands to raise other taxes. While payroll or sales taxes do penalize "good" activity, they also tend to mirror the overall economy. A carbon tax intended to readjust the economy to lower carbon use will inevtiably reduce its own revenue and plants the seed to bring back other taxes.

That said, I'd rather have the efficient mechanism of a carbon tax than the crony capitalism of cap & trade. But I think we ought to reconsider whether either is inevitble.

I'm a skeptic on global warming, not a denier, but the empirical observable information in the northern US this year puts a real dent in the alarmist camp.  We have yet to see 90 degree weather in CT all summer, and this seems to be the case as well in MN. 

I'm not sure hitching our political wagon to getting huge heat waves in populated areas is so wise.   It's "An Inconvenient Truth" the salience of this issue depends on observable episodes of warm weather.

I also think the based on my read, the salience of the "climate change" issue is focused on a) younger and b) better educated voters.  I suppose a long run argument can be made to address this issue, but in 2010 we are going to be dealing with an electorate which is going to skew older.  Are we better off using limited time and resources talking to 50 year old people who are highly likely to vote than 20 year old voters who may have simply cast an Obama-mania  vote in '08? 

It may be true that the "chattering classes" may think a response on this issue is essential ( see David Cameron, UK) but the cold hard truth is we've already lost virtually every one of the high end House seats where this issue matters (WA 8 and IL 10 the visible exceptions). The low hanging fruit for Republicans in 2010 is likely to be in blue collar places like IN 9 and OH 16 where the cost is obvious and the reward speculative for enviromental legislation.

Now how are the Democrats reponding? And doesn't that say something.

My Congressman, Chris Murphy, who holds a swing seat in a blue state, voted for Waxman-Markey. And how did he justify his vote? Based on the alleged argument the bill would wean America from foreign sources of energy and the cost of inaction was too high. (hmm, open up ANWR, naw!)

As the CT Republican State Chairman pointed out in his weekly e-newsletter.     

But here is the kicker - no where in this entire letter is global warming mentioned or the need to save the polar bears or the quality of our air. In it he simply says, we must rush to placing the development of a new whole technology in the hands of the government, to decide, through taxes, who can use what fuel for what purpose. If it doesn't work out, well, at least Uncle Sam tried.

(IM: Guess it's now not so much fun being Henry Waxman's towel boy, Chris.)

  I think that Democrats have decided that the Global Warming issue is a stone dead loser in the face of the Great Recession. (Yes, the salience of the environmental issue moves in lockstep with the economic cycle).Much like the antiwar movement, this was a useful cudgel against the eveeeel Republicans, but now they are quickly losing their desire to actually have to walk the walk on taxing the crap out of everyone to "save the planet".  Looking at the climate issue through the prism of: a) the 2006 election when the economy was prosperous; or b): the 2008 election with its unusually high youth vote, may just cause us to fight the "last war"; now that we are going to be dealing with the grim economic conditions expected for 2010 and 2012.  Given our opponents were astute enough to win the last two elections, why would we benefit from picking up an unpopular issue they are now either walking or running away from? 

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: A source at the Americans for Limited Government in Washington D.C. called my attention to a dangerous piece of legislation that is working its way to the floor of the House of Representatives. This bill would restrict your rights as never before. Simply put, this would legislate that the Government could take an industry and slaughter it! And that is the least of the powers that they will gain if this is allowed to pass.

Left wing extremist, Henry Waxman and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is set to vote on legislation that would place tobacco products under the authority of the FDA. The bill could be on the President's desk as soon as this Summer. While I am not a smoker nor do I even support smoking in general, one does not have to agree with smoking to see that this bill only serves to further centralize government authority over our daily lives. Through classifying tobacco as a drug under the authority of the FDA, the Government then can force people to do as they say, and as a result, put thousands of people out of work and block new proven smokeless products from entering the market.

Instead of helping to fix the problem, the government will use force and coercion to influence the change that they want. They are gaining power to influence your daily life, and do not think for one second that they will not exploit this for their own benefit. Although the ears of the Arkansas and other Blue Dogs democrats appear to have been clipped by Speaker Peloisi, if they don't stand up soon for against the continued onslaught of centralized government authority, they will become totally co-opted by Pelois' liberal cronies. As for Arkansas Vic Snyder, no need seek help since he represents the liberal extreme interests. And as much as I would like to ask "former" blue dog Marion Berry, he appears to be out for nap most of the time.

But I am going to plead with the one able minded Arkansas Blue Dog congressman who in the past has taken stands for his Arkansas constituents. That Congressman is Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas' 4th Congressional District. So here goes: Congressman Ross, please do not support legislation that would restrict liberty and freedom. As long as people are not restricting the liberties of their neighbor, there exists no need to punish them. It is not the job of the Government to tell people how to live their lives, rather, it is the job of the government to defend us from those who would restrict liberty. Congressman Ross protect our liberty and freedom. We are all watching and hoping! Join me and Contact your representatives!

.Waxman to push global warming bill

 

Bitter cold settles over wide swath of US

By David Sharp

 

Associated Press Writer / January 15, 2009

  

PORTLAND, Maine—A bone-numbing blast of arctic air settled over the Northeast for an extended stay with extreme temperatures Thursday that fell to 38 below zero in northern Maine, cold enough to idle ski lifts, silence snowmobiles and send people indoors.

 

I'm sure the subzero temperatures tonight across the Northeast explain why we should add hundreds of billions to the federal deficit to deal with warming. I'm just not quite sure why.

Last month, America cast a vote to feel better about itself. Much as I had predicted in July , in the absence of a well reasoned economic alternative from the McCain campaign the voters would revert to casting a vote that would expunge the Bush years. http://www.thenextright.com/ironman/not-so-happy-motoring-a-challenge-for-mccains-michigan-ohio-strategy

I do not need to link to every quote where someone has said how good the Obama win made them feel about themselves, or their country.  It's like the entire clientele of Whole Foods Market has obtained validation that those crass, bellicose Republicans have lost.

But in the end, this is all ephemrical feelgood nonsense. We elected a Gatsby candidate http://www.thenextright.com/ironman/the-gatsby-candidates who now must enact real policies that do real things, which his resume offers scant evidence of.

Indeed, the election of Obama reminds me of this scene from the movie Dave, where the stand-in President is looking for money for a homeless program and inquires why the government is spending lavishly on making existing car owners feel better about their cars.

 Dave: I don't want to tell some eight-year-old kid he's gotta sleep in the street because we want people to feel better about their *car*. Do *you* want to tell them that?
Secretary of Commerce: [quietly] No sir.
[sits back in his seat and reflects]
Secretary of Commerce: No I sure don't

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106673/quotes

Well, the Obama Presidency may prove to be a multitrillion dollar effort in making people feel better about themselves. Whether it accomplishes anything useful for non-idealogues will probably be answered in how it handles the auto bailout.

It appears likely that the Bush adminstration and Congress have agreed on floating the car firms enough money to get into Barack's term  http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN0646586520081206?rpc=44. I'm actually OK with this. Much as I had to drop well over a thousand this morning to keep the wife's jalopy on the road, we probably need to do this.   Better quick and incomplete than to allow these firms to sink deeper.

There's no time to figure out a comprehensive recovery plan and hardly any money after the $700 Billion TARP program is funded.  And for those convinced the Detroit Three are on their way inevitably to the Wilmington bankruptcy court; well, it might be better if they filed when the rest of the economy was a little more robust. Much as I would rather buy a new car along with the wife when things settle down a bit 

The problem is long term the Democratic Party has identified three mutually exclusive requirements for a auto bailout.

a) Protect taxpayers by making sure the firms return to profitability and pay back the loan.

b) Protect organized labor by limiting concessions and maintaining as much employment as possible.

c) Advance the environmental agenda by promoting electric cars.

I presume everyone here would favor a). But you can't get there when there's going to be labor efforts to keep plants open and compensation high, especially when even before the credit crisis there were too many car firms and too many car plants http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070307/AUTO04/703070363/1148/AUTO01

I would suggest those who foresee Detroit moving seamlessly to green cars consider how hard Toyota had to work to deliver a hybrid to market  http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/17/news/companies/mostadmired_fortune_toyota/index.htmEvidently Toyota is now hoping to get the Priius profit margin up to that of the Corolla. Maybe. Notice the ubitiquous incentives behind sales of this car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius#Government_incentives. Toyota is hoping to sell 200,000 Priuses per year in the U.S.;  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius#Sales. By comparison, the Chevrolet Silverado pickup still sells twice that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Silverado.

Now, does anyone think such brilliant economic minds like Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and Chris Dodd are going to take economically prudent steps to revive the auto industry, or are they going to "save the planet" by sacrificing the taxpayer.

I suspect that in a couple of years when highly profitable Tundras are flying off the Toyota lots a lot of Japanese businessmen will be saying Domo Arigato  to the D.C. Democrats.

I also suspect that we will be all made to feel good about the American car industry by the DC Democrats, but much as British Leyland proved an expensive and futile effort in corporate socialism for the UK  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Leyland, the new world of domestic car manufacturing will prove politically correct and financially unsustainable.