Political MoJo

Stanley Greenberg's new survey (PDF) of Hispanic voters addresses a number of interesting points, but two really stand out here. The first is the rather obvious truism that candidates really do matter come election time. George W. Bush, of course, captured a near-historic percentage of the Hispanic vote, 40 percent in 2004. But he did this in part by distancing himself from the negative perceptions that Hispanics had of the Republican Party in general. Only 18 percent of Hispanics consider the GOP to be "accepting of different cultures"—indeed, the Democratic Party has a 40 point lead on the issue—but 30 percent thought the same of Bush himself. 30 percent is nothing to brag about in tolerance contests, but difference came in handy on election day. Unfortunately for the GOP, no other presidential name for 2008 seems to carry a similar personal advantage.

Now as to why Kerry did relatively poorly among Hispanics, some 39 percent claimed that they had no idea "what he stood for." Yeah, well, so it goes, we've heard this ad infinitum and it's not clear what Democrats can do about this besides, perhaps, run a more comprehensible candidate (Hispanics give Bill Clinton, for instance, an overwhelmingly warm personal rating). Anyway, the second reason—28 percent—had to do with Kerry's "permissiveness on abortion and gay marriage," which would appear to give "centrist" Democrats yet another excuse to sacrifice abortion rights in order to reclaim swing voters. But if you look a bit farther down, a pro-life Democrat would run only slightly better than a pro-choice Democrat, and support for stem cell research pretty much swamps any edge an abortion foe could bring. (Obviously a pro-life, pro-stem cell candidate would do best, but Bill Frist's delusions of the White House aside, there aren't many presidential contenders who take this view.)

Meanwhile, one should note that Hispanic voters under 30 and Hispanic voters with a college education are overwhelmingly pro-choice (60 and 62 percent respectively). So Bush may have won himself a slight advantage in 2004 on the issue, but over time—given changing demographics and, one would hope, a greater proportion of Hispanics going to college—abortion will turn into a much less successful wedge issue for Republicans to wield. For that matter, read Digby's weekend post on this very topic—although I'd note that, at least as far as the polls are concerned, the left-liberal position on both the intelligent design debate and the Ten Commandments-in-the-courthouse debate seem to be spectacularly lost causes. But other than that...

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Weaning the United States off oil certainly sounds like a worthy goal, but today's Tom Friedman column on the subject—a column he's recycled on several occasions—gets a bit off track when he tries to make the national security case for energy independence: "[W]e are in a war. It is a war against open societies mounted by Islamo-fascists, who are nurtured by mosques, charities and madrasas preaching an intolerant brand of Islam and financed by medieval regimes sustained by our oil purchases." Well, regardless of what you think of all this, we're simply not going to drain the Saudi coffers and bleed terrorism dry by driving our hybrids to work: the extra oil we don't use will just get slurped up by China or India or any number of other developing countries with a growing demand for energy.

Perhaps a better way to think about energy independence and national security, as Joseph Braude pointed out several months ago, would involve weaning other Middle Eastern countries off oil. Most countries in the region, after all, are quickly depleting their own reserves, which means that they'll need to rely, increasingly, on good old Saudi crude. But an increasing reliance on Saudi crude comes with strings attached: oil-needy countries like Jordan and Lebanon often feel the pressure to turn a blind eye to the Saudi-financed Wahhabi mosques that proliferate within their own borders, which simply helps spread that "intolerant brand of Islam" that Friedman's concerned about. Ending this cycle of dependency seems much more feasible, and perhaps more effective from a national security standpoint.

On the other hand, let's not kid ourselves; Saudi Arabia will be getting rich off oil sales for a long, long time, regardless of what we do, so pretending that some "geo-green" strategy can end the flow of funds to radical mosques, charities, and medrasas, is a bit wishful. At the same time, though, if Friedman really wants to insist on making a bad argument in pursuit of a worthy goal, well, he can go right ahead.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

One of the supposed "downsides" to term limits for members of Congress has always been that the never-ending supply of "newbie" representatives on the Hill would get eaten alive by their more-experienced lobbyist counterparts. Indeed, some folks have claimed this has happened here in California, where various special interest groups—businesses, primarily, but let's not forget the ever-present correctional officers union—supposedly know the terrain in Sacramento better than the term-limited elected officials do, and rarely fail to get their way.

That line of reasoning seems dubious, though. Wouldn't special interests prefer to have stable and predictable pathways of access? If you're a lobbyist or other interest group, isn't it better to have a longtime ally installed in the Speaker of the House slot, say, than constantly have to worm your way into the hearts of incoming freshmen, most of whom have hardly learned how to get you things? And doesn't the fact that "special interests" of all stripes raised millions of dollars in 1990 to block the term limit initiative in California suggest that they've always known this? Yeah, probably.

Anyway, one clear upside to term limits for members of Congress is that, while it wouldn't lead to fiscal responsibility—it sure hasn't in California—at the very least, the constant rotation of representatives would ensure that the billions of dollars in pork each year gets spread around the country more evenly. Frankly, if Republicans don't care about pork-barrel spending, than neither should we—surely it must create jobs somewhere, right? good ol' Keynesian spending? Still, when a lifelong House member, Don Young (R-AK), can haul down nearly $1 billion in highway spending for his little wasteland of state, well, then it's time to start sharing the wealth. (Yes, yes, just kidding about the "wasteland" bit. I heart Alaska.)

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

When parts of the Washington press corps got egg on their faces for circulating suggestions from "sources close to the White House" that Judge Edith Clement would get Bush's Supreme Court nod, some wondered who exactly these oft-quoted, and off-the-mark, leakers were. Now Ryan Lizza has a handy guide to the dozen or so folks who will talk when the White House won't. Keep it bookmarked for the next time their names pop (or don't pop) up.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet