Centrist Pundits

Well, the media is all abuzz about Sarah Palin’s book.

I haven’t read it yet, so I’ll reserve judgement on it. But with all due respect to our friends over at Palintology, I think that she’s got a really big job ahead of her in terms of political rehabilitation.

Certainly her resignation as governor is the biggest thing for her to get around. I mean, I understand why she did; having to deal with one bogus ethics complaint after another week after week after week would make me want to quit too.

But it’ll take a lot more than a book to reverse her political fortunes. Yes, she’s the darling of the far right, and she can have a very lucrative career as a public speaker and fundraiser if that’s what she wants. But if she wants to be elected to national office, she’s going to have to appeal beyond that base — and that means to us, the centrists.

I remember watching her debate coverage when she ran for governor of Alaska and being impressed — and being shocked when she ran for Vice President and appeared to have lost at least 40 IQ points. That observation alone makes me tend to believe that at least some of what she says about being mishandled by McCain’s staff is true. But she’s gotta convince us that she’s more than a caricature, and she’ll do that by speaking things other than right-wing catchphrases.

It’ll take some time, and I don’t think it’ll happen in time for 2012. It took about 20 years for Joe Biden’s national political repuation to get repaired. Maybe it won’t take so long for Palin, but if she wants to get elected to something, she needs to have a realistic timeframe. The problem is that the GOP might actually nominate her in 2012, when she won’t be winnable. That’s a serious mistake on their part.

During the campaign, though, the time I was the most impressed with her was towards the end, when she says she stopped listening to the advisors (at a point where it was very clear that they couldn’t win anyway) and she gave a series of speeches on energy policy. It’s an area she knows, it’s an area she’s comfortable talking about and she makes a hell of a lot of sense. If she’s really lucky, she’ll get taken on as Energy Secretary in the next Republican administration.

Greg 2012 Election, Media, National Politics, Personalities Palin

One of the great things about politics is that people tend to draw whatever conclusions they want to draw out of any poltical contest. I remember a Democrat in November of 1994 telling me that the election wasn’t anti-Democrat, it was anti-incumbent. I found that hard to swallow, since all of the incumbents who lost that day were Democrats. But it does remind me that it can be dangerous to find what you’re looking for in the tea leaves.

But, no matter, because now I am doing the same!

I think that the victory of Democrat Bill Owens in the special election for the NY23 congressional seat should indicate something very important to the major parties: shut out the moderates at your own peril.

Dierdre Scozzafava is a moderate Republican. She represents the future of the GOP — if, indeed, it has one. And the national party’s insistence on dragging the party to the right of what the locals knew would work lost them the seat. They might not have liked a moderate Republican, but they’d sure like her better than a Democrat.

Fact is, moderates and independents don’t like crap like this, and they’ve shown that it won’t be tolerated. Well, in upstate New York, at least.

Greg National Politics, Political Parties

(No, I’m not really back yet – new job and all – but I may post a bit this month.  I expect December to be when I start getting back in to this regularly.)

You know, the New York Senate was completely messed up this summer, and it barely made the national news.  But one not even particularly interesting Congressional race gets a bit weird, and suddenly, it’s everywhere.  I speak, of course, of New York 23, a bit north of where I live… but on my TV a lot these days.

Now, of course, normally, there would be no Congressional election this year.  But the previous Congressman is now the Secretary of the Army, and so a special election needed to be held to fill the seat.  Normally, this would be a remarkably open and shut case.  New York 23 is one of the more conservative districts in the state, and the area hasn’t had a Democratic representative since just after the Civil War, if  I understand it correctly.  Its Republican country until tomorrow.

Tomorrow, it may be Democrat country, or, more likely in this blogger’s opinion, Conservative country.    Now, I have no problem with a Conservative campaigning and winning an election (although he doesn’t live in the area, which I do have a problem with) but that’s not really the story.  The story is that a moderate – something that this website is interested in – was completely forsaken by the party – in favor of a conservative.

We all know the country, generally, leans to the middle, by most guesses, a little right of center, but towards the middle.  We also know that politics is completely defined by the two extremes of the political spectrum, both in their own self-definition and in their opposition’s definition of who they are.  Right now, the Republicans are looking towards their future, to figure out how they’ll define themselves.  And most of the bigwigs look like they’ve decided that they will define themselves as the far-right.

The vast majority of the party leaders said that the candidate for the Republican party (who is, admittedly, a moderate – but let’s face it, NY Republicans are never the standard bearers of conservatism – and who, admittedly, was not elected but appointed as the candidate by 11 NY Republican Party county chairs) wasn’t conservative enough to be a Republican, and endorsed the Conservative Party’s candidate.  I’m not one for blind party loyalty but I think the least one can expect when one is the candidate for a party is the endorsement of the party’s movers and shakers, whether its enthusiastic or not.  It seems pretty basic.

The Republican, Dede Scozzafava, on the other hand, isnt showing much loyalty to the ideals of the Republican party either.  Not because of her moderate stances on things like gay marriage – which isn’t nearly the issue here in NY that it is, say, in Oklahoma – but because when she withdrew from the race, she endorsed the Democrat.  Again, not one for blind party loyalty, and she’d been rogered pretty badly by her party, but you probably shouldn’t endorse your party’s traditional opposition, as a general rule.

The parties exist, whether they should or not, because like minded people pooling their resources make for more power than a bunch of individuals.  In exchange, sometimes, you take one for the team.  If either part of that equation falters, the party suffers.  Right now, it seems like no one is remembering why parties exist.  I’d normally be okay with that, except I think at the moment it plays in the political extremist hands, rather than the rise of the center.

I suppose some might say that this is the beginning of the rise of a Conservative party.  And maybe they are right.  But if they are, is that good for conservatism in America?  If most Americans are center or center-right, does a stronger national party that always plays far-right get elected?  Or do they split the vote with moderates and start to consistently lose to Democrats?  When people say that parties are, by definition, big tents, they aren’t just saying that because they like to see a few people of color, a few women, and a few homosexuals around.  They are pointing out that you need to get to at least the plurality of votes.  A Conservative party that ignores moderates only works if moderates themselves go by the wayside.  Right now, it looks like the only two Republicans who realize that are Newt Gingrich and Meghan McCain.

The sad part about it is, this election isn’t some sort of bellweather.  If the Democrat wins, it is because the vote was split.  If the Conservative wins, it is because of outside influences.  If the Republican wins – which is basically impossible – it is because the district votes Republican by default.  There’s no… data… to be garnered from the results.  Just noise.  And noise is what those who endorsed the Conservative want – they want their names in the papers for their own ambitions – Palin, Pawlenty, Pataki and more.  Because if they can say “Hey, I don’t toe the line, I do what’s right, heck, I don’t even endorse my own party’s candidates if they are the wrong person” they can claim to be mavericks, free-thinkers, and movers and shakers, even if all they are is an ideologue.

JC National Politics, Political Parties, State Politics Congress, Conservative Party, elections, Palin, Pawlenty

If there’s anything that unites centrists, it’s the feeling that the two major political parties fall short of enchanting us to the degree that we want to give them all our support. After all, terms like “centrist” and “moderate” are considered by partisans to be invectives.

I’ve looked at other parties before; most are to the left of the Democrats or to the right of the GOP. There are some that appeal to a few moderates; I looked at the Libertarians, but they’re a little too liberal on the social scale for my tastes.

One party with promise seems to be the Modern Whigs. They claim to inherit the rich history of the 19th Century Whigs, which gave us four presidents, and was also the original party of Abraham Lincoln. From a purely marketing perspective, I think that’s genius — because the Party of Lincoln hasn’t really been acting like it for a long time.

Right now, the Whigs seem to not be fully defined. They do have some basic tenets listed on their website, including a fiscally conservative policy that is state-driven, emphasis on scientific research and development, and a recognition that the economic and national security future of this country depend on energy independence. Also, there is a tenet about veterans affairs that seems to be common sense, but has a prominent placement that’s likely due to the fact that the party was re-established by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for other issues, they do go into some… well, detail isn’t the right word. They touch on some of them, and I think this is an area that the Whigs need to work on. Many issues are kicked to states rights. And that’s fine, but when they do that for Gay Rights, there’s nothing on the party’s view on federal issues, such as federal recognition of same-sex marriages for social security retirement benefits and for joint tax returns, or about federal laws like DOMA.

I am not sure if that reflects a lack of resources to get that information on the website, or if it’s simply because the Whigs haven’t fully defined themselves on some issues. If it’s the former, they really need to get some proper position papers out there on some key issues. Not every issue under the sun, but some areas to fully explain what it means to be a Whig. If it’s the latter, then they need to figure out what they’re about.

There’s also a possibility that they’re shying away from some controversial issues to keep from alienating potential supporters. In fact, their statement on abortion appears to be just that. Not that I blame them for wanting to stay away from it — it’s an issue that sucks time, energy and money away from critical issues like health care, national defense, the economy, and education. But you can’t look like you’re dancing around the issue if you want to be taken seriously.

The Whigs have ballot access in Florida, and have three candidates for Congress next year. I listened into a web conference they had with the candidates, and by far, the most appealing was Paul McKain. He seems like the real deal, and if I lived in his district, I think I’d be voting for him.

I’ll be paying attention to the Whigs. I’d have gone to a meeting to find out more, but they don’t seem to have any state organization here, nor can I find anyone else why has heard of them. Maybe that will change… I’ll see!

Greg Congress, National Politics, Political Parties whigs

Sometimes, what the parties send out that might look like a desire to know where their supporters stand is actually a push-poll designed to raise revenue. Here’s a recent example from the GOP:

Republican Census Document

Greg 2012 Election, National Politics, Political Parties gop

Can we take back the Nobel Prize and exchange it for the Olympics? I mean, there’s actually been work done towards the Olympics…

Greg Foreign Relations, National Politics, Personalities

I’ll admit it, I like the idea of travelling by train. I love the thought of seeing the countryside roll by, for the chance to read a book or nap or whatever as I travel to my destination.

Of course, it’s just a thought, because for me, like most Americans, train travel is neither cost-effective or time-efficient.

I did take a train trip once. I was about ten years old, and we lived in North Carolina, and I took a train to see my grandparents in Mississippi. It was the only time in my life that there was a train going between where I was and where I wanted to go.

In my own state, we’ve only had Amtrak service for about ten years. I’ve been tempted to take the train to Fort Worth (because that’s as far as it goes), but then I stop and think… why do I want to go there?

A policy analysis from the Cato Institute lays out how badly a public policy investment that Amtrak is. It costs Amtrak 30 cents per person per mile to operate. And the passengers pay for less than half of that — 13.7 cents per mile. Who pays for the rest? The American taxpayer — including the ones who will never board an Amtrak train in their lives.

And for some, it’s not a matter of choice or preference. Several major cities, such as Phoenix, Las Vegas, Columbus and Nashville , have no Amtrak rail service at all. These cities do have what Amtrak calls “Thruway” service, but that’s just a fancy name for a bus.

Speaking of buses, they manage to move people for 11.6 cents per passenger mile, of which their passengers pay… 11.6 cents. That’s even better than the airlines, who move us around at just 13 cents a mile.

I still like the idea of rail travel, and there may be routes, particularly in the northeast, where it may be profitable. Just don’t ask for the rest of us to pay for their train tickets, please.

Greg Economy, National Politics

The Senate voted down a proposal today that would have allowed concealed weapons permits from one state to be valid in any other state that had any form of concealed carry law.  As stated before, my own views on gun control are somewhat complicated… I want to view them as tools, while at the same time acknowledging that they are very dangerous when used by the untrained, while at the same time acknowledging that that’s true of almost anything… all while finding the second amendment to be complicated by the militia part of the text and at the same time knowing that the intent of the second amendment was to fight tyranny yet even guns are no longer enough to resist a tyranny… okay, you see why it gets complicated.  That’s probably the longest run-on I’ve written as an adult.

This is both a right to bear arms issue and a state’s rights issue.  Strangely, the weakness of the first part is what allows the second part.  While many gun rights supporters would state that the second amendment unequivocally allows people to carry guns, this isn’t true from a legal standpoint.  Just as there are certain restrictions on the right to free speech (the first amendment) the law allows for restrictions on gun ownership and the right to carry (the second amendment).  It also allows for those restrictions to be regulated by state.  Therefore, what you have to do to get a gun and a concealed carry permit in, say, Nevada, may be very different from what you have to do in, say, Pennsylvania.  Indeed, while in most states, a concealed carry permit is issued if you apply and meet the criteria, in 2 states no permit is needed at all and in a few others the permit may be denied even if you do meet the criteria; the difference between shall and may in the laws makes all the difference.

But even ignoring shall and may, in one state there may be training and background checks, while in another state it may only require that you be of a certain age and have no criminal record.  From state to state the right varies.  So what I’d like to do is ignore the gun control arguments – “concealed carry saves lives” vs. “more gun deaths happen in homes with guns” stuff – and just look at it from a state’s rights perspective.  If someday, the gun control argument is settled and the second amendment conflicts resolved, we’ll have to look again, but right now, the law of the land is that states can regulate their own guns laws.

In that light, one of the arguments is that a license to drive in one state lets you drive in any state.  That’s true, and it’s certainly a valid argument that hits all the right points; getting a license to drive is definitely more difficult in some states than others, and all states recognize other state’s license (except for some age differences) for temporary visitors.  However, as far as I can tell – and I could be wrong – that is based on an interstate compact rather than a federal law, which is also why in some states you can get a new driver’s license should you move with minimal trouble, while in others you need to restart the whole process.  Which makes me wary of a federal law saying that permits in one jurisdiction are valid in another.

But taking a page from the licenses, I think reciprocity could be worked out between the states.  There might be occasional exceptions, like for age.  The main concern, for me, would be that, like driver’s licenses, people permitted to concealed carry be subject to the laws of the jurisdiction they are visiting.  Much like “Its legal to drive 75 back in my home state” wouldn’t hold water in a speeding violation, if someone from Washington wants to carry in New York, okay, but if they carry in to somewhere New Yorker’s can’t, ignorance of the law can’t become an excuse.

On the other hand, those who get carry permits are often – not always – but often those who would be most interested in actually learning and obeying the law.  So it probably wouldn’t be much of a problem.

JC Crime and Punishment, National Politics gun control, states' rights

As Greg mentioned, Sarah Palin has decided not only to not seek re-election as the governor of Alaska, but to step down by the end of the month.

JC 2012 Election, National Politics, Personalities, State Politics 2012, Palin

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is announcing that she’s not going to run for re-election.

I am not the only one to think that she pretty much just announced her candidacy for President in 2012. She’s got a lot of political rehabilitation to do, but I think it would not be wise to underestimate her.

Greg 2012 Election, National Politics