Cuccinelli's Pledge Against Pledges

This week, VA gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli - considered a conservative Republican by almost everyone - is taking a stand against Grover Norquist and ATR.  As Politico reports, Cuccinelli wants to tackle tax reform as governor, and ATR's "pledge" may block any such efforts.  Cuccinelli, therefore, is refusing to sign it.  (Side note: for evidence of Cuccinelli's fiscal conservatism, see his writing in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy).

For years, ATR has taken a hard line on its "no new taxes" pledge.  The most recent examples have been its repeated claims that it considers closing a tax loophole to constitute a tax hike.  As many GOPers have come to realize, this interpretation of the ATR pledge blocks any meaningful tax reform.  In any tax reform effort - as opposed to a straight tax cut - there's going to be a reallocation of taxes.  Many people believe that rates should decrease but deductions should be cut so more money would be subject to those lower rates.  Others may think that particular segments of society are not paying their share or that certain activities (like driving, drilling, or living near the ocean) are not bearing their full societal costs.

Any way you slice it, meaningful reform means someone might pay more taxes.  This makes sense: the current tax code was largely written for the 1986 economy.  We had just suffered the oil embargo and an era of "malaise."  No one anticipated the "peace dividend," multiple rounds of free trade talks, the internet, and the rise of mobile computing.  Today's economy is significantly different from that of 1986, and it would make sense that good tax policy might demand a different formula than thirty years ago.

For Cuccinelli, assuming he wins in 2013, he's going to be term-limited.  Could this be the first shot-across-the-bow of a future Senate run?  I can see the messaging now: "I'm a conservative, and I have commonsense conservative principles - not silly pledges - to back it up."

Tusks and Tails: Assorted Links, Tuesday morning

Just a few interesting links today:

1. The inside dirt on how NYPD fills its lineups - they got a guy, ya know! (NYT)

2. The first corporate 'super-PAC' comes from an unlikely source: a burial-at-sea entrepreneur.  I would have expected it to be FedEx, UPS, or other companies at the top of the PAC giving lists.  (WaPo)

3. New Hampshire paper delivers Romney a veiled threat regarding his influence in Nevada (Union Leader, h/t RCP).  Its worth mentioning, however, that if NH puts its primary a few days before Nevada (the Iowa Caucuses are now Jan 3 and Nevada is Jan 14), I really don't think its going to affect much of NH's influence: (counter to the paper's doom and gloom prediction).  NH's influence and importance come not from a date on a calendar but rather from the retail politicking required and the gravity with which NH natives take their primaries.  

Huntsman: Interesting Asia-Pacific Policy

Image via WikipediaJon Huntsman delivered his first major foreign policy address yesterday in New Hampshire.  Calling for America to turn west, the speech was thoughtful and articulate, and it drew heavily on Huntsman's experiences as a diplomat.

In particular, three things leaped out.  First, Huntsman leaned on his various experiences living abroad.  That represents quite a stark change from recent GOP primaries in which candidates had not traveled extensively (other than as members of CoDels) or were not fluent in other languages:

"I’ve lived overseas four times. I’ve seen the world as a diplomat, as a businessman, as a humanitarian. I’ve lived in and seen what our most significant competitor nations are doing to prepare for the rest of the 21st Century. And I have a very clear vision of what America must do as well."

Second, Huntsman announced support for India to receive a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.  Currently, only the five veto powers (US, UK, France, Russia, and China) have permanent seats.  Huntsman's position is an interesting one: India is the second-most populous nation in the world, has the ninth-largest economy, could serve as a counterweight to China in the coming decades.

Huntsman is probably correct that the Security Council needs reform, and he is perceptive that the US will get more "friendship points" naming India first.  But he seems to brush aside the tremendous cost of his proposal.  Huntsman's proposal will surely infuriate both China and Pakistan.  Additionally, Japan (#3 economy), Germany (#4 economy), and Brazil (#7 economy) all have strong claims for a permanent seat and will lose significant international face if only India is added to the Council. 

Third, Hunstman's theme could be described as either nuanced or inconsistent.  He uses uncharacteristically strong rhetoric against nation-building and in his claim that America's "future is not in the Hindu Kush Mountains of Afghanistan."  He also combines a slightly isolationist "come home" message ("Only Pakistan can save Pakistan.  Only Afghanistan can save Afghanistan. And right now we should focus on America saving America.") with a touch of the traditional Democratic message that the US should not presume to tell other nations what to do ("We cannot dictate fundamental changes upon an age-old civilization from afar.").  But then he bends back to hit a hawkish note on Iran.

All in all, a very interesting speech.  Win or lose, Huntsman will continue to be a voice in American foreign policy as he gets, more than almost any of his colleagues (with the potential exception of Romney), that the 21st century will be a Pacific one.

Quick plug: Huntsman for Secretary of State in a Romney administration?

Artists Raising Cain: The Lee Greenwood Primary

Image via WikipediaOne of my favorite stories this morning comes from the Alex Pappas at the Daily Caller.  Lee Greenwood, singer/songwriter of "God Bless the USA," and several other musicians endorsed Herman Cain for president yesterday in Nashville.   

Food for thought: as his anthem is such a mainstay of GOP campaigns and conventions, would Greenwood permit it to be a theme song of a Romney-led ticket?  Would he volunteer to perform it at the RNC as he has in years past?

I hope that he would.  The message transcends anyone's pick in the primary or the general.  It truly is an American classic.

Was Scott Brown's Comment Sexist? No - and It's a Disservice to Everyone to Describe It That Way!

                            Image via Wikipedia

Scott Brown's "Thank God" rebuttal to Elizabeth Warren two days ago amused some and offended others.  But to me, the most striking element of the entire exchange was the immediate reaction by many that Brown's comment was sexist.  

The MA Democratic Party circulated an online petition demanding Brown apologize for his "sexist remark."  TheWashington Examiner's Phil Klein agreed the comment was sexist and argued that no Democratic senator could have same the same thing about a Republican woman.  The president of the National Organization for Women accused Brown of a "sexist misogynistic attack" and should withdraw from the 2012 race.   The blogosphere blew up with similar comments.

There was nothing sexist in Senator Brown's comment.  Juvenile?  Certainly.  Unnecessary?  Probably.  But not sexist - that's critically important.  Merriam-Webster defines sexism as "prejudice or discrimination based on sex."  What part of Senator Brown's statement differentiated between men and women?  If Rush Limbaugh, for example, had challenged Brown from the right and had made similar comments, do we really think Brown wouldn't have fired back the same way? 

We can have all the arguments we want about whether his comment was constructive for this race.  Many of us probably believe neither his comment nor Ms. Warren's provocation was fitting of a Senate campaign.  But we shouldn't go around calling such comments "sexist" when they aren't.  It cheapens the meaning of the term, and, worse, it disrespects those who've faced true sexism. 

The Blocking and Tackling Behind the Perry Campaign

I'll admit it: I'm not a huge Rick Perry fan.  We could go line-by-line, but the short answer is, I don't think he's got what it takes to get elected or, more importantly, to lead the most powerful country in the world.

All that said, Perry's recent campaigns have developed a pretty novel approach.

First, its technique has been unorthodox, drawing upon randomized tests devised by his campaign manager (NYT; Sasha Issenberg's new ebook "Rick Perry and His Eggheads"):

• He refused to debate opponents when running for governor
• He avoids "mainstream media" a la Palin, including editorial boards
• He relies more on public appearances than satellite beam-ins (aka, he hits a place more thoroughly, rather than just getting his name in a local paper) 

Second, it (so far) has been remarkably lean.  Politico reports that, while Perry's $17M of fundraising was impressive, the fact that he had $15M in the bank was even more so.  If this low burn rate continues, he'll be able to continue his run without the deeper-pocketed donors that Romney is tapping (like the commitment of Paul Singer and several big Pawlenty donors in the last two days).

Although the race looks to be closing in around Perry (and, admittedly, Perry may regain his stride), one must wonder if these strategies will form part of the major lessons from the 2012 race.  In 2000, it was W's fantastic fundraising efforts.  In 2004, Howard Dean (or maybe Joe Trippi) used the internet to catalyze supporters and  fundraise online.  In 2008, Obama (and David Plouffe) took Dean's playbook to the next level, utilizing technology, meetups, and social networking heavily to their advantage.

Will 2012 be the year we learn of the "lean" campaign?

To no one's surprise, Christie says no...

Of course, using the language "[n]ow is not my time" suggests he's already plotting a course forward...  If Obama wins in 2012, does that line render Christie the presumptive 2016 front runner?

EJ Dionne calls it "the right choice."

Do Christie Comments Signal Democratic Fears?

Making the Sunday morning rounds, two sitting Democratic governors both took shots at Chris Christie yesterday.  (See Politico here).  Given that Christie's only mulling a run and that most people don't think he'll race, are the Dems hitting the gas a little hard?  Are they signalling that they are worried about Christie coming in?  They may be smarter simply sticking to the candidates they're actually going to see next year.  Maybe a swipe at Christie just keeps the topic away from the current front-runners and emphasizes the state of flux in the GOP primary right now.

That said, I'd go back to the drawing board on the particular attacks they fire off at Governor Christie next time.  Painting him as inexperienced because he would only have two years of big-time political experience were he elected president may not be the best line for Team Obama, as the President only had two years in the senate prior to his current role.