I have long thought (since Dole, I think) that the only reason Repubs have been able to further their goals is because of tax-cuts / fiscal responsibility. The majority of Repubs have more reasons for being in the party, I would guess, but enough to win them elections are only there because they are bribed with tax cuts, and taught to be terrified of those horrible, taxing Democrats.
Posted by Timothy Klein at October 8, 2003 01:44 AMSteve,
Good post. That's why I believe no candidate can win an election with the promise to "repeal the Bush tax cut". Basically, what I see is that people want all the services but don't want to have to pay for them. The candidates who offer to raise the taxes on high incomes have a much better plan, imho. The GOP can call this "class warfare" all they want but it won't sell. First of all, they will look like defenders of the wealthy. Secondly, in my experience, there isn't a lot of sympathy out there for wealthy people.
39% of the people polled on 10/7 said they were democrats. And, 37% said they were republicans. Then 19% said they were independents.
I don't think republicans voted Schwartzenegger in, by the way. I think a majority of died in the wool republicans went for McClintock.
But what we did see (and, yes, I, too, called it wrong), is a TOTAL DISGUST for politicians. Arnie got the vote because he ISN'T considered such a beast.
Was Gray Davis a bad governor? You bet. Was there enough anger out there against his TIMIDITY? You bet. Same anger is out there against BUSH.
Davis never moved correctly when the energy crisis came. And, it's only at the end that he even signed a flurry of bills. Each one worse than the other.
And, who turned on him? There had to be firefighters in the mix. Their pockets are already enriched. I think there are plenty of State workers who were clueless. They think the benefits from the pandering has been written in cement.
But there will be built tightening ahead.
And, Davis did FAIL. That so many people were glad to throw him out of office? Yes. I'm surprised.
That the groping charges didn't stick against Arnie. Surprised again. That the naked pictures of Arnoldt didn't scare people away from thinking he'd be a good governor? You bet. Really surprised on that one.
And, how about his health? Steriods don't leave to longevity. Okay. He's had his heart valves replaced. Is he gonna be our bionic governor? Or, does Cruz Bustamante get a second shot? You know, he's still lt. governor. That doesn't change.
Time will tell what's ahead. But if the San Andreas can give you an earthquake that eventually moves our coastline up to Alaska, well then this recall just gave a shot across the bow to the insiders who have been fused at the hips. The media is in trouble. And, how both parties seemed to have forgotten the voters; as tax money redistributes should have some impact, somewhere, where people who live for their political power. Or who live close to political power where they too earn their livings.
On the other hand, 3 weeks from now this won't amount to a hill of beans. It will be business as usual. And, the voters will be post Christmas on this toy they just brought home.
I wish Schwartzenegger luck. The job ahead is not a move set. There are no retakes on bad news. And, expectations are gonna run high. Will he be different than Davis?
Well, he's got political capital to spend. And, he can go on TV should he run into trouble with Sacramento's ruling elites in the legislature. No one knows their names. But if Arnie is unhappy, and goes public ... maybe there will be pressure to bear? Career politicians tonight have new fears to face. Or, they have to molify Arnie and hypnotize him into inaction. You choose.
The man thinks he has a broom. So, I guess we'll watch a man with 22" biceps sweep?
I'm not weeping over Gray Davis. (And, in Gary Condit's house, now in Arizona, I bet the family brought out the champagne.) Something that went around came home to roost. Poetic justice, indeed.
Posted by Carol in California at October 8, 2003 03:35 AMDefinition of an American: a person who will die for his country, but not pay for it.
Posted by sagesource at October 8, 2003 05:48 AMGa6thDem:
As you can see, this fine post was by pessimist, not me, although I would love to take credit for it.
Posted by Steve Soto at October 8, 2003 06:29 AMI agree. All you have to do is listen to Rush Limbaugh's show and hear how many of his die-hard supporters don't even agree with the GOP party-line: "I love you Rush, but I support raising the minimum wage, clean air laws, subsidized health insurance, I'm opposed to free trade agreements that ship jobs overseas, etc etc." And I shake my head and think, WHY are you listening to Rush and voting GOP?
Posted by TR at October 8, 2003 07:25 AMRemember the Savings and Loan Bail-out in the late 80's? A classic from the old Phil Donahue show was a guy in the audience standing up and saying - to applause - that he didn't "see why the taxpayers should have to pay for it. Why can't the government pay for it?"
Posted by Carol at October 8, 2003 07:41 AMQ:Is Arnie going to actually work to repeal Wilson's car tax?
My guess is no, but I'm not in Calif. What do you Caleeefornians think? If he's still got Buffett hanging around, I wouldn't be surprised if tax increases are in the offing. He should have no problem raising them without fallout--after all he physically abused a goodly amount of women & he got a pass. It wasn't his fault for doing it, it was the LA Times' fault for saying so.
If he raises taxes, the media won't dare criticize him for implying that he wouldn't raise taxes. The new meme, as expounded by fat Tim Russert among others, is that the media has got to do some soul searching & rethinking for reporting credible but negative stories about Arnold. Listening to him, I got the idea that Russert was warning his colleagues off of pursuing the abuse of women stories after the election because people don't want to hear it. Too bad women in Calif are marginalized.
Carol; re Davis & timidity I heard Willie Brown speak of that on MSGOP last night. I'm paraphrasing, but he said something to the effect that Davis had governed by polls & tried to avoid controversy so that he could survive & look where that got him. He said that Davis should have just governed by what's right.
Maybe this timidity backlash should be a lesson to the DLC/DNC/beltway insiders who believe so ardently in it.
Not surprisingly, Brown did not really stand up for the abused women of Calif, nor criticize Arnold much for his actions. He blamed the LA Times for the way they presented the story? [I guess he's got a problem with corroboration.] Despite all the rancor, there is some bipartisanship when it comes to the treatment of women.
Posted by Hoosiercat at October 8, 2003 08:07 AMThey are waiting there, wanting to jump the fence - just as long as they can take their money with them
Politically, Democrats can never win the tax argument. Ever. If the debate is strictly focused on taxes, the GOP wins every time. If someone walks on a street and says "I'm gonna give away a million dollars to everyone on the street," and someone else comes along and says "I'm gonna give away $125,000 to the people on this street that need it the most," who do you think people are going to listen to? They'll go with the person that has the biggest pot of cash to give away every time. Divorced from the reality of governing, that's what the tax cut debate devolves into. And, by pretending that they can do it all, the GOP has made the debate into that dynamic. Democrats have to have a different strategy. No matter what the tax cut proposal Democrats come up with, the GOP can match everything they do--or at least appear that they are giving the same, or even more, to the "middle class"--and add a bunch of goodies for the rich, while yelling the bigger overall tax cut number. But, real people lose on the deal because they lose services, and their state and local taxes go up.
Bush has ripped the mask off of this scam with his incredible fiscal mismanagement. Now is the time to go for the kill. We have to change the dynamic on this debate once and for all. Offering competing tax plans makes the debate about which tax plan is better. It does not make the debate about the starvation of government or the services government can provide. Think about it, how much time in the '00 election was spent on a comparison of the tax plans of the two candidates? Almost all of the media time devoted to policy debate focused on "fuzzy math" charges of which plan gave what to whom. The only real firm number in the whole thing is the overall plan number, and the GOP's was higher. It's a perfect set-up for the GOP.
When we make the debate about other issues, we win. And we win big.
Posted by BriVT at October 8, 2003 08:28 AMAs Tom Geoghegan pointed out several years ago in an American Prospect review of the Dunlop Report.
"For twenty years, my whole adult life, the Republicans have had a lock on the Three Magic Words: "You're Being Robbed. It's Government, it's taxes...."
It's a lie. But they've monopolized those words. We have to get them back
Posted by at October 8, 2003 09:01 AMThe recall had very little to do with party. Davis was personally a disaster. Schwarzenegger was viewed personally as a take charge guy who didn't seem to have any really aberrant views. If anything, Schwarzenegger benefited by being the "middle" candidate between liberal Democrat Cruz Bustamante and conservative Republican Tom McClintock.
Posted by CADem at October 8, 2003 09:12 AMSteve,
You got part the equation right--greed and the Democrats=Taxes association. But I think more importantly, this was about a perceived Outsider vs. Insiders.
As has been proven time and again since 1976, the People will pick the Outsider as long as the s/he has money and/or charisma. Howard Dean's distillation of the CA election is dead on, and not surprisingly, since he's benefiting from much of the same anti-establishment energy that propelled A.S. to the big win.
Posted by Bragan at October 8, 2003 09:15 AMI'm sure if they framed it thus--any family making under $200,000 will see no tax rise in the next four years--they could get away with whatever they wanted above that bracket. How could the media report that as anything other than good for ordinary Americans? (that figure is arbitrary)
Posted by Chris at October 8, 2003 09:31 AMCan I try and answer those questions as a former Republican?
Do you want a clean environment?
Yes. This is not a democrat or republican issue. This is an issue regarding fiscal common sense. We have to make good decisions and compromises that don't penalize businesses and taxpayers.
Would you live in a neighbourhood with black people?
I do. Again, not a party issue. This is an "affluence" issue. I live in a middle-class neighborhood, with other middle-class folks. Of many races. Asian, hispanic, black, arabic... A big melting-pot of a neighborhood... We all have good jobs. Rephrase the question "Would you live in a poor neighborhood?" and middle-class folks would generally answer NO. This is not about race.
Do you believe in going to war to resolve our differences with others?
When attacked we have to defend ourselves, especially when negotiations aren't working.
In addition, Bush hasn't driven the economy into the ground. A series of 11 interest rate hikes from Greenspan caused the economy to faulter in 2000 when Clinton was still president and before the election. The economy is currently recovering, due to Greenspan's rate cuts, and the Bush deficit spending, and finaly tax cuts which have increased consumer spending.
When the economy recovers, the deficit spending will decrease as one-time military outlays shrink. Most likely, taxes will be hiked, too. Keyesian Economics 101.
Finaly, for me at least, it's not that Democrats hike taxes that worry me. It's the social spending. Social programs grow exponentially in costs, and will eventually bankrupt the country. Money doesn't grow on trees. We live in a social democracy with a fiat currency. The currency is only worth what the government tells us. There is no gold standard. We cannot print our way to prosperity. There has to be goods and services produced. Unfortunately, we're heading down the same road as Europe has. And we're seeing the same results. Jobs are leaving to low-cost countries like China and India for much less expensive labor. Such that, we could be looking at double-digit unemployment as we decline as an economic superpower. Like Europe.
Just my opinion of course. Phew. Went on a rant.
Enjoy your blog.
Posted by muckdog at October 8, 2003 09:42 AMI'm sure if they framed it thus--any family making under $200,000 will see no tax rise in the next four years--they could get away with whatever they wanted above that bracket. How could the media report that as anything other than good for ordinary Americans?
Democrat: I want to repeal the Bush taxes for everyone above $300,000
GOP: The Democrat wants to raise the average tax bill by XXXX! And we, on the other hand, want to permanently repeal the "death tax" so poor, struggling farmers don't have to give up their farms.
Democrat: Well, the estate tax only hits people above a certain level, now, about my tax plan: I want to get rid of the Bush tax cuts only for people above $300,000; I also want to give a tax credit for middle income families for child care expenses.
GOP: I met a farmer just the other day in Minnesota was real worried about losing his farm to the death tax. I also want to [insert new tax-cut proposal here, including a child-care credit but with other goodies]. My plan will leave more money in the hands of Americans. And over there we've got a Democrat who wants to raise the average tax bill by XXXX. Our economy is starting to grow again, and raising taxes like the Democrat plans to will just push our economy back into a recession.
Democrat: Wait a minute! Average tax isn't a good indicator of who will be affected by my proposal. And this new tax plan of the Bush Administration is a blatant give-away to the rich that will bust the budget. Under my plan, only the people making over $300,000 will pay more in taxes. And our economy isn't recovering from the massive harm of the Bush economic agenda.
[insert economic analysis from the Heritage foundation showing the effect of both plans on a "typical" family that they make up]
GOP: The Democrat is talking about who will pay more in taxes, while I want to give more money to real Americans. It's your money not the government's. I want to [insert new tax cut proposal here]. I've returned billions of dollars from Washington into the hands of ordinary Americans, and now the Democrat wants to take it back.
The media will report the Heritage agit-prop numbers without "editorializing," making it impossible to realize how disingenuous everything from the Bush people is. The entire campaign would be a series of counter-charges about who benefits more from which plans. So, the Democrat will switch the argument to which plan is "affordable" and try to talk about the massive deficit Bush has run up. The GOP will trot out some analysis that muddies the water there, too, by claiming the Democratic plan wouldn't make much of dent on the deficit either, especially with all that crazy spending. All the while the debate can be framed that the Democrat already agreed on the overall concept of the Bush tax cut so therefore the argument is just about the details. The end result will be mass confusion and an endless focus on taxes to the exclusion of everything else.
We've been down this road too many times to make the same mistake again. In an argument about taxes, we can not win. We have to make them react to us, not the other way around.
Now, I'm not saying that this approach of arguing about the level of "tax relief" will lead to an electoral loss; I'm just saying it's not a winner as a strategy. Bush may be such a colossal failure that he'll be doomed to losing no matter what; he is, as they say, a target rich environment. But, the GOP will win the tax argument if you play the game. No doubt about it.
Posted by BriVT at October 8, 2003 10:58 AMThis morning on C-Span the guest (an economist) had to tell callers who called in on the "Support the President" line that the views they were expressing were contrary to the positions held by the Bush administration.
He also stately that if the current trend of outsourcing mid level professional jobs to foreign countries continued Bush had no chance in winning the election in 2004.
It's the classic honesty vs. pandering argument. Do you tell people the truth, and do so with a simple straightforward argument so they actually get it, or do you pander? It was easy for Arnold to pander because the short time frame and his celebrity made it so he didn't have to use the same budget math as everyone else. He didn't have a record to prove him wrong, either. I think honesty can be a better choice in some circumstances, however. Nobody will ever out-pander Bush, so maybe the right strategy is to point out that Bush is wrong, rather than play his game.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at October 8, 2003 11:09 AMmichael moore was on THE VIEW today, the ladies were rude. especially this guest-host "Kara Henderson"...she seemed to think this was her chance to get her GOPpoints™, whippin out this li'l wittiscism... "Documentary...or MOCKumentary!"
she then alleged that scenes in the film were "staged". michael moore said "you just slandered me on national tv!!!"
there was much shouting, with the ladies deciding that MICHAEL MOORE was the rude one...for not answering her allegation!!!!
Starr Jones of course had to bring it all back to her..."in this book, you make fun of President Bush's™ Faith™, now that is LOW. YOU EVEN SPEAK IN GOD'S NAME!!!!"
kara henderson chirps "you even made God CUSS!!!!"
Meredith charges "DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT USE YOUR OSCAR SPEECH FOR POLITCAL REASONS?"
geez meredith, i only wish someone was that tough on AN ELECTED OFFICIAL!!!!
Joy Behar feels protective of Michael Moore & tries to explain to him that "You cant do satire AND documentary, it has to be be or the other."
surely her "comedianne" card should be revoked over that one!?!?!?!?!
Posted by norn at October 8, 2003 11:17 AMOne word for RINOS: infantile. Huge open mouths screaming "I want I want I want; Mine Mine Mine Gimme Gimme Gimme!" and then expect someone to empty the turds from their diapers.
The people at Arnold rallies expressed their outrage at the economic conditions in CA, yet they drove away in SUVs the size of yachts.
Grow up America! Until that happens, we can expect more results like this.
Posted by MrHappy at October 8, 2003 11:25 AMAh, "The View"...the show that allowed Annthrax Coulter to come on and be one of the girls.
Yep, that media shur iz librul.
Posted by Tom Slick at October 8, 2003 11:46 AMMuckdog, I don't know where to begin with your last full paragraph... you think social spending will just grow and grow forever, but you think military spending will be cut back? The Clenis (gotta look up how to make that tm) himself did exactly the opposite.
Also you have the standard American misperception of "Yurp." I shouldn't even try to begin, but here's a taste:
Sure, they have high unemployment. But they MEASURE IT MORE STRINGENTLY THAN WE DO. Germany's unemployment has a hell of a lot to do with East Germany.
If our jobs are "going to low cost countries" just like Europe's did then why have hardly any European jobs come here? We are supposedly lower cost?
Oh, and I bet you don't even realize that the steel tariffs were because the US industry was getting killed by the Europeans, not some third worlders.
Oh, and NAFTA? The most European country, Canada, is punking the US who is punking the most lassize faire country, Mexico.
Oh, and as for providing goods and services: Germany has about a perfectly balanced trade sheet, France is a net exporter as is Britian. So they don't have to "print currency" to raise their standard of living. They sell things like maglev to the Chinese.
And how do you ever expect to "cheapen" American costs enough to compete with China? It's impossible, cutting social programs will get you as close to that goal as driving to work gets you to the Moon.
Posted by doesn't matter at October 8, 2003 12:53 PMI think your post, and Moore, gets it right. Since Arnold is the ultimate RINO, it makes sense that he would appeal to this constituency. They've found their perfect candidate, and now Governor.
Posted by st.pauljohn at October 8, 2003 01:37 PMOf course European jobs left Europe for our shores and elsewhere through the 1900s. As they've increased their social programs, their innovation and economies have downshifted. Much like ours is now.
Here are the costs per hour worked in various world nations. Interesting. That in a nutshell, is why we're seeing millions of jobs leave the US.
We have to be careful not to get blinded by Republican or Democrat ideologies, and work together to come up with practical solutions. We can't just police the world or have free health care for all, when our ability to fund them is eroding.
Regarding military spending, that's one thing that's pretty flexible. Clinton proved you can cut it dramatically. Bush proved you can increase it dramatically. Military spending is full of one-time expenditures. You can order 12 bombers this year, and 0 bombers next year.
Social spending is more entrenched. Once a program is enacted, it tends to grow at a rate exceeding population growth + CPI, and is usually expanded on. A recipe for fiscal problems down the road, as we've seen with Social Security and Medicare.
Thanks for the feedback.
Posted by muckdog at October 8, 2003 01:52 PMFolks, Schwartzenegger is NOT a republican in the conventional sense. And, unlike Reagan, I don't think he's 'along for the ride.' I think he has chutzpah enough to push his weight around. And, to fix what's broken. In California the democrats had a free ride, because instead of an oppositional party, they got the right wing loonies into office.
That's why the political stuff in Sacramento is so cracked. There's no way to compromise. Not with the people who maneuvered into position.
I knew Davis was a dog when Gary Condit was accused of murder. And, the sing-song addition to his name made it look like he did in an intern. Too much fantasy folks!
Condit's two beautiful children worked for Gray Davis. And, he just let them go to hell. He turned his back; when the obvious statement was that the media was drumming up a fake case against Condit on murder charges. Okay. Condit went down. He was a democrat. And a republican replaced him up in Modesto.
And, that's how the democrats lost.
They thought they'd campaign on the slogan Davis was already voted into office. Yeah. And, in while on the job our economy tanked. And, Davis didn't want to pressure Enron. Or his energy friends.
So, he did something stupid. And, the powers that be joined him. If Davis was able to generate so much dislike EVEN AMONG THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED "NO" ON RECALL ON PRINCIPAL ... when it comes to an angry electorate principals aren't going to keep you from getting hung.
This was a blowout. And, while the media did report the polls, there was nothing that seemed to indicate this was how people would actually vote. There were no bumper stickers. Everyone was pretty much disgusted. But Arnie looked a lot better to most people than keeping Davis in place.
And the fact that he was 'in place,' is the same tragedy that Algore was in place to run in 2000.
One of the surprising things now, with Dean, is that even though the insiders in the democratic party don't like him, Dean has found resonance with the PEOPLE.
Just as McCain had. And, in 2000 the Bush's destroyed McCain's chances to run.
Hopefully, if this Schwartzenegger thing isn't just a 3 week phenomena ... we will get either MORE or just better people to choose from. And, it is the PEOPLE'S CHOICE! It doesn't belong to the polls. And, their system of hacks, that kept the whole show in place for much too long.
Posted by Carol in California at October 8, 2003 04:35 PMThe under x strategy worked for Clinton. People knew that he wasn't going to raise their taxes because he stated a specific number. Bush I tried to claim that Clinton was going to raise your taxes but he kept coming at him with a number. I still think using a number is a much more saleable idea than just a general statement of repeal. That's a lot more open to attack.
Muckdog has a point. When you argue for programs, one of the first thing that pops in someone's head is how much is that going to cost me? Then you get into a cost/benefit argument. Some candidates may be able to win the cost/benefit argument and some won't. Also it brings up this anti-government crap.
Posted by Ga6thDem at October 8, 2003 05:49 PMPessimist and Steve,
I'm sorry I mistook one of you for the other. It was soooo early in the am (my excuse anyhow)
and I'd thought that the month-long street closure associated with the new (near my town) Krispy Kreme's 2 hour donut lines was the explanation for Arnold's victory.
Posted by beerick at October 9, 2003 01:22 PMDid you know America's declining birth rates are the problem?
Social security, et al, would not be in trouble if we had a vigorous pool of kids coming along, who'd work their 40 years. And, as good taxpayers, would keep the system afloat.
There's a great book out there, Jim Rogers, Adventure Capitalist, where he toured the world, and commented about the differences he saw. The real engine that China is now. And, the Potemkin Village we build in South Korea (a locked economy. A shame. And, a scandal.)
Russia? A basket case.
But not India. And, not Turkey. In Turkey most of their population is under the age of 26. And, educated. (Rogers used the example that Mercedes Benz makes cars in Turkey. Repeat: You can hire Turkish workers, pay them less than you would in Germany, and get quality production.)
YOUNG DEMOGRAPHICS IS GOOD.
Europe, like us, is aging. And, that's NOT good.
Anyway, mistakes happen. That's the truth that history keeps showing. We're a lucky country. We've got more freedoms than any other group of people on earth have ever known. And, we're large scale.
That things got complex? And, politicians are bred to work the levers of government into goodies that fall into their own pockets? This is not new.
But there's competition now, coming alive. One of the things Californians just did was come to the polls for an odd election, when usually people don't do this, save every 4 years, when the biggest numbers go to the presidential election.
And, one of the reasons the polls seemed to be veering, is that no one was sure what the turnout would be. So, when sampling took place it had to be stretched to anticipate how many people would actually vote. I think the final number is 7.5-million people. But the expectations ran as high as 10-million.
Projections get hard to do when you try to devine what's going to happen in the future.
However, as news goes Gray Davis is OUT. (And, if he pads his pockets with goodies ... something Condit tried to negotiate as he was falling down), the democrats may have to live with the bad press this will generate LATER. As if the news TO the democrats in California wasn't bad enough; Davis may get yet another shot at creating a democratic piniatta. WHOOPIE.
Arnold has the most chances to go UP, because no one has expectations. Other than he has a reputation to smack heads together. And, he got elected not because we want a governor here, right now. BUT WE WANT THE TERMINATOR!
As to the LA Times, they don't even have an office in Sacramento. Want to point at what Californians don't know? Clueless what the legislatures do up thre.
With Arnold's name recognition this, too, is about to change. Did the lights just go off in California? Heck, no. They've just been turned on. HOLLYWOOD BRIGHT. And, it should be interesting to see how frightened politicians look when the People get ready to take one after another out of office. Bring on the clowns. This is a job opportunity better than any cattle call ever done by Broadway.
And, Arnold as a Republican? Only the kind that can save the asses in that party. He also won the prize with very little effort. The big cash machine was on the right. Out of Darryl Issa's pockets. I think entering cost Arnie about $50,000. Pocket change, here.
Oh, and don't forget the Kennedy's own a machine into the media. It's not your ordinary family.
Posted by Carol in California at October 9, 2003 05:29 PM