Right in San Francisco

McCain's S.W.O.T.

   Somewhere in the Sedona Summit - probably in Mitt Romney's laptop - there was a Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats discussion of the campaign against Barack Obama. Hopefull it looked about like this:

  Strengths

     1. Strong positioning as an ethical centrist, willing to take on his party on issues of principle. Examples include leadership of the bi-partisan agreement on approval of federal judges, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill, advocacy for comprehensive immigration reform, and opposition to earmarks.

    2. Deep experience in military and foreign affairs, from both his peronal experience and from his ranking position on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Assuming that the recent progress in Iraq continues, he can assume that the American people will prefer a strong presence in the Middle East to the Obama / Reid / Pelosi call for retreat.

  Weaknesses

    1. His age. He can anticipate continuing protestations by the Obama campaign and the NY Times that his 71 year age should not be considered a campaign issue. Pray for his mother's health.

   2. Socially conservative positions which are necessary if one is to obtain the Republican nomination, and with which he is apparently comfortable. This does diminish his attractiveness for disaffected Hillary Democrats. His environmental views help.

  Opportunities

   1. In a general election campaign, as opposed to Democratic primaries, there is a large "where's the beef" question about Obama. (Hopefully some campaign consultant will find a simple phrase to capture the reality.) As opposed to McCain's Maverick status, Obama's record of voting "present" on tough issues in the Illinois Senate, his far left voting record in the US Senate, and the lack of any history of putting principle ahead of personal political benefit should be a warning on leadership.

  2. The Democrats will control both the House and the Senate, with liberal leaders in both chambers. Most Americans find split government with checks and balances to be comfortable. Obama's call for change is real, and he would have a clear path to radical change - as yet undefined, but certainly far to the left.

  3. Hillary's campaign has shown where the fissures are in the Democratic Party. In terms of geography, the broader Ohio River Valley can provide enough Electoral College votes to overcome the potential loss of Virginia. (270towin.com provides an excellent interactive map for assessing the possibilities.)

  4. Many people sitll want to know who Obama is. His books are interesting - particularly to the Obamites - but the people with whom he has chosen to associate are more interesting. His supporters talk of breaking down the Red State / Blue State divide, but his San Francisco moment showed who he respects and who he doesn't.

Threats

  1. Iraq could collapse. That's unlikely, but it is the hope of partisans in the Harry Reid mold.

  2. The economy could significantly worsen. Contrary to the din, the economic data is mixed, suggesting a shallow recession with reason for optimism by November. But, the current accounts deficit and our reliance on  expensive foreign oil are real problems that will require marked improvement in the next administration. McCain's humorous candor on economic understanding has hurt, notwithstanding his role on the Senate Commerce Committee. A VP with economic strength would help, both in the election and in the administration.

  McCain's bet - and I suspect a good one - is that a series of unmoderated debates on the issues will help to focus his differences with Obama, show a marked different in experience, and demonstrate a contrast between his leadership and Obama's mediator tendency to look for the best in characters like Rev. Wright and President Ahmedinijad. 

Why I Like George Bush

   When someone in San Francisco asks why I like George Bush, you can be sure that thay won't listen to an answer.  It is more like an offer to let you reconsider, since you obviously wouldn't admit to being that stupid and mean spirited.  Well, a 30 % approval rating ain't great (even if it is 10% better than the Pelosi / Reid Congressional rating), but it does amount to over 30,000,000 voters. So, in the hope of showing that we are not all ignorant warmongers:

     1. He has integrity. Despite all of the best efforts to find them, there are no Billy Sol Estes', Marilyn Monroe's, Monica Lewinsky's, or Tony Rezko's.

    2. He has the courage to address large problems and does not waver for political gain. Three specifics come to mind:

     -  Foremost is the effort to bring democracy to the Middle East as a long term antidote to the threat of militant Islam. He understood on 9/12 that the Clinton Administration's "do nothing" policy was not acceptable, that this was a long term proposition, and that the American people don't like war or have a long attention span

    -  Second would be the willingness to address the problem with Social Security. As he promised after the 2004 election, he would spend his political capital on putting the government's retirement program on a sound financial footing. As it was, his "private accounts" were too risky a solution, and his capital ran out. But the problem will soon find another president.

    -  Third would be education. The long term campaign of the teachers' unions has had a large impact on public opinion about No Child Left Behind, and in reducing progress, but this George Bush / Ted Kennedy initiative has brought an increased level of accountability along with significantly increased funding to public education. Progress is local, and is often tied to choice.

     3. The economy has been strong - domestically and globally. Some facts missed by the Democratic candidates and the Mainstream Media:

    -  While data can be managed in many ways, the data from the Federal Reserve for the Bush presidency show consistent, modest growth in Real Gross Domestic Product (about 3% annually), with tame inflation (2 to 4 %), and average unemployment (about 5%). Some 8,000,000 jobs have been created.

   - For investors, and that is a majority of Americans, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 21% since Bush took over (despite the aftermath of the dot.com bust), and up a compound 5.5% per year during the second term. Actually, corporate earnings have done much better than that, but P/E ratios got wildly out of whack in the past decade and prices relative to earnings have now returned to historical relationships.

   -  During the Bush presidency, over 300,000,000 people in the thrid world have moved out of poverty.  While the European intellectuals may not like Bush, he gets a different reception in Asia and Africa.

   4. We have been safe. The trade-off between civil liberties an national security needs a thoughtful discussion, but there should be no question that measures taken in Iraq / Afghanistan / Pakistan as well increased surveillance capabilities have prevented the bin Laden's  of the world from doing what they would like to do. Iran remains a problem with nuclear proliferation, but successes include the dismantling of AQ Khan's sales network, Libya's abandonment of their program, apparent Chinese-induced progress with North Korea, and Israel's apparent management of Syria's aspirations, as well as the elimination of any threat from Saddam Hussein.

   War, long political campaigns, and a hostile media have had an impact on popularity; however, the country has been well served. Besides, the Red Sox have won the World Series twice. 

Voting On the Economy, Stupid

   One of the difficulties of a two-year presidential campaign is that, when the candidates begin, they have no idea of what the world will look like on election day - at least in a tactical sense. In September, when MoveOn.org was talking of "General Betray Us" and Senator Clinton chided the commander in Iraq for seeking a "willing suspension of disbelief", the Democrats were anticipating that a failed "surge" would finalize the war as their ticket to the White House. But as military success in Iraq has become obvious, if fragile, and the Maliki government has shown courage in taking on difficult political issues, the Democrats have moved their attention to the economy, which has entered a natural downturn after six years of expansion in which several hundred million people around the world have risen out of poverty. (Yes, that was the flip side of outsourcing and free trade.)

     If one accepts the rhetoric of the Democratic candidates and the pundits - all of whom have have an interest in disaster scenarios - we have the worst statistics for (fill in the blank) since the Great Depression, and a major change of direction is needed. Certainly, the financial institutions that enabled an unsustainable housing bubble are now deservedly suffering as speculators and marginally-qualified  homeowners are being reminded by the market that no asset can enjoy double digit appreciation forever. Amid the clamor to bail out failed mortgages and provide "rebates" to all voters (er, taxpayers), it should be noted that the economy has continued to grow through the first quarter of 2008, inflation remains tame, unemployment remains within the long term average for good times, and a stock market recovery may be serving as a leading indicator that the economy will not be in such a bad way on the first Tuesday of November. Hopefully for the Democrates, the din has been loud enough and the recovery lead time will be long enough that they don't have to search for Plan C.

     But in selecting a president, the debate should be about policies that will continue America's position as the world's most competitive economy. As described in the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report, our preeminence is based on many factors, including our education system, infrastructure, financial and legal institutions, and flexibility in adapting our capital and labor markets. As the electorate lurches to the left, one should be concerned about opposition to free trade, union protectionism, the litigation climate, and prioritization of universal health care over education. It has been our good fortune to inherit the legacy of Reagan, the Bushes, and Bill Clinton rather than that of McGovern, Dukakis, Carter, Gore, and Kerry.

Florida Redux

   God must have a great sense of irony.  After the five week legal challenge to the 2000 Florida presidential election by the Gore campaign and the Democratic Party, we now have the spectacle of the Obama campaign and the national party declaring that "No vote must count." The juxtaposition does, however, provide an opportunity to refresh memories and debunk some of the urban legend that continues to enflame the Left's anti-Bush rhetoric about an election that was stolen by a Republican Supreme Court.

    In broad terms, without Florida Bush had 246 Electoral College votes, and Gore had 267, with 270 being required. (Gore won the popular vote by 543,000 votes out of 105,000,000 cast, but it is, of course, the Electoral College that counts.)  Nineteen days after the election, the Florida Canvassing Commission certified Bush as the winner by 537 votes out of some 5,962,000 cast in the state. The Gore campaign filed a complaint, and the (predominantly Democrat-appointed) state courts generally favored the Gore contentions until the (predominantly Republican-appointed) US Supreme court, in a 7-2 vote, stopped the recount due largely to the lack of uniform standards, effectively confirming Bush as the winner. 

     There were subjective arguments on both sides. For the Republicans, the TV networks had announced that the polls were closed and called Gore the winner before polls actually closed in the heavily-Republican western portion of the state; several hundred (heavily military) overseas ballots were disallowed for improper postmarks.  For the Democrats, the state's election system was managed by Republican Jeb Bush's administration; a standard effort to scrub the voter rolls had resulted in the elimination of some 96,000 (disproportionally African American) names; and several county ballot designs were confusing.

     The legal challenge revolved around the timing of the recount (the state Supreme Court overturned the state law, extending the period from 7 to 19 days), and the standards to be applied (moving from the Secretary of State's objective standards to an interpretation of the voter's intent.) Some 180,000 votes were not certified - about one-third because there was no clear vote for president, and two-thirds because the voter registered two names. In early 2001, a group of media companies, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post, hired the National Opinion Research Center to do a complete count of the 180,000 uncertified votes.  Results varied based on the standards used, but the clear conclusion was that if the criteria requested by Gore were applied, Bush would have won by 225 votes. If the criteria ordered by the Florida Supreme Court were applied, Bush would have won by 300 to 600 votes. Ironically, both dealt with the 61,000 "under votes", and not the 113,000 "over votes".  Had those also been included, under some scenarios Gore would have won by a few hundred votes. (See the complete report).

     So, now comes the 2008 Democratic primary.  Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris has come and gone as a Congresswoman.  Jeb Bush has retired as governor. But the left wing of the Democratic Party has determined that, as a matter of principle, Florida Democrats should have no say in selecting the party's nominee. There will be a complaint that somehow the Republicans are to blame since they have a majority in the Florida legislature which approved the early January 29, date for the primary, although both parties voted for it. Obviously, this is all about political advantage and has nothing to do with principle. With enough time, the Obama campaign will hope that people are not interested in the facts or that they can be re-written - as was the case for the Left in 2000. 

Nancy Pelosi's Foreign Policy

     Few would deny that the framers of the Constitution understood checks and balances.  Priority in budget matters was given to the House of Representatives, with two year terms making its members highly responsive to the electorate.  Primacy in foreign policy - as reflected in approval of ambassadors and treaties - was assigned to the Senate where six year terms allow for measured responses.  Much of American political history has been fought out within this construct, with domestic politics "stopping at the water's edge." No longer.

    Exhibit Number One was what the Washington Post described in April 2007, as Ms. Pelosi's counterproductive and foolish "attempt to establish a shadow presidency" by engaging in freelance shuttle diplomacy between Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Syrian President Assad. The issue here is not the appropriateness of the administration's approach to Syria - with its relationsip to Israel and Iraq, its role in Lebanese political assasinations, its support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and its apparent efforts to develop a nuclear capability. It is the hubris of the speaker in attempting to supplant the Secretary of State.

     Exhibit Number Two is the Columbia Free Trade Agreement. This agreement is exceptional in substance (heavily balanced to the US; containing environmental and labor provisions; supporting a major ally who has been gaining ground against the Hugo Chavez-supported FARC guerillas) and in process (extensive bipartisan consultations with Congress; openness to aid for displaced US workers; a fifteen month effort to arrange a schedule for Congressional consideration).  Nevertheless, the Speaker has made it clear that the agreement, while having majority support, will not be considered due to election year opposition by Democratic constituents.

     Exhibit Number Three is Pelosi's long-standing criticism of China, demonstrated most recently in her visit in India with the Dalai Lama where she called on the world community to denounce China's crackdown on Tibet as a "challenge to the conscience of the world."  Deliberately antagonizing a major trading partner and world power may have been acceptable when Pelosi was representing just her San Francisco district with a large Chinese population. When she does so as Speaker of the House, it again undercuts the ability of the State Department to act within a coherent and comprehensive foreign policy.

     The irony of this misplaced foreign policy activism is that the House does have, through its budget authority, the ability to curtail the Iraq War, the dominant foreign policy concern of her political base.  It would appear that, recognizing that a direct challenge on Iraq funding would be politically disadvantageous for her party, Pelosi has determined to undercut the administration in the Middle East, South America, and China.