Note to the President

Mr. President,

Having just read through your remarks today, I have to ask, were your exit pollsters also pushing Proposition 19 in California?

Listen, when you lose over 60 seats in the House, and the #1 reason given by voters is that the government has gone too far with health care reform and spending, you should listen. Instead, I see a guy who may think doubling down in the next two years is a good thing.

I don't believe for a second the entire health care bill can be removed, you've still got a veto pen, and Harry Reid in charge of the Senate. However, you are going to have to scale it back. If not, you're party becomes the "Party of No" come 2012, like "No Senate, No White House".

Secondly, don't listen to Robert Reich. Yeah, he's smart in some ways, and somehow survived Clinton's move to the center. But if you take his advice and continue to tack left, you'll find no help anywhere. There are a number of Senators in your party who have to live through 2012, they won't if they side with you on more far left agenda items. (Ask Russ Feingold how it worked out for him).

Finally, guys like Tom Daschle and Trent Lott are going to start offering you advice on how to not only get along for the next two years, but possibly thrive. Listen to them. You may in your heart of hearts believe you are the smartest guy in the room, but they are the most experienced; and one thing I've learned in life is that a lot of degrees don't always make you the best for the job, but a lot of experience usually does.

Read The Full Post!

No Love On Trade

When the Secretary of Commerce beats up both Democratic candidates positions on NAFTA (at least as they stated them last week), it's to be expected. When the GOP Candidate whips up on them about it, it's to be expected. But when the editorial board at the Washington Post schools them, they should take note.

In their final head-to-head meeting before Tuesday's Ohio and Texas primaries, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) declared that they would opt out of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico unless those two countries renegotiated the pact's labor and environmental provisions to the United States' liking. For two candidates who pledge to repair U.S. standing in the world, it was an odd swipe at our next-door neighbors.

The last line is especially true, it's hard to gain better standing anywhere when you want to renegotiate approved treaties from a "me first" perspective.

The Congressional Budget Office studied NAFTA in 2003, and found that the effect of it on the US economy wasn't huge, but it was a net positive, with our exports to Mexico growing faster in all but 3 of the first 10 years of the agreement than our imports from Mexico.

Carlos Gutierrez, the Secretary of Commerce makes two good points, one current and one historic. The current one being that while the economy has slowed due to the housing and credit crunches, our exports have been increasing, and cushioning that slow down. This was pointed out in the Wall Street Journal on January 28th by Brian Wesbury, who noted:

With housing so weak, the recent softness in production and durable goods orders is understandable. But housing is now a small share of GDP (4.5%). And it has fallen so much already that it is highly unlikely to drive the economy into recession all by itself. Exports are 12% of the economy, and are growing at a 13.6% rate. The boom in exports is overwhelming the loss from housing.

Does either Democratic candidate truly believe that we'll sustain that kind of export growth if we decide that unilateral renegotiation of trade agreements is the path we should take?

Gutierrez's historical note was based on the protectionist past of the US, and it's devastatingly bad impact on the economy:

There was a time in our nation's history when we sought to protect Americans by withdrawing from the world. In reaction to increasing agricultural imports, our government raised tariffs to historically high levels. We tried to protect jobs. But instead of the prosperity Americans expected, our unemployment rate increased to 25 percent and international trade dropped 66 percent. Protectionism was the wrong approach during the Great Depression, and it's still wrong in 2008.

We've seen this occur in small pieces over the last decade or so, whether is was the net loss of 250,000 manufacturing jobs to protect 60,000 steel workers with a misguided tariff on imported steel, or the decrease in agricultural exports to Europe when we decided to impose tariffs on certain imports from them, and got beat up at the WTO.

While it's easy to pander (as the Post puts it) to certain segments of the population for political gain, it's harder to reverse the notion with trade partners that you want to redo set agreements for your own gain. That same sentiment will end up creeping into negotiations with other potential partners, and soon you find that even if you support decent trade agreements you can't negotiate them because of the perceptions that are out there.

Isolationism and protectionist trade rants aren't going to turn back the clock to 1950, when the US was the supplier of everything to nearly everyone. It's not going to bring back jobs that were lost when segments of our industries became uncompetitive and too expensive to compete in the world market that has been emerging for the last two decades.

Instead, that type of rhetoric, and the actions suggested by both Clinton and Obama would bring back the 1930's, not a time many of us are yearning to return to. (Or in my case visit for the first time).

Read The Full Post!

Sometimes It Takes Years...

Sometimes it takes years for a point to get across. You may have the greatest arguements in the world to pose to your adversaries, and they just don't (or refuse) to get it.

A few things 17 years in the making are starting to become clear to people who ignored them that whole time. Harken back with me, to the last century, circa 1991, and the beginning of the Bill Clinton Era. Conservatives and liberals remeber that time frame differently. Democrats saw the dawning of the "New Camelot", Republicans saw the opening stanzas of "Liars Club".

When the right (rightfully) said that Bill Clinton would say or do anything to get into office, and provided numerous examples we were brushed off by the media and the left as "bitter" over Clinton's plurality election win(s).

Bill was chastized for making his wife 'too powerful' by making her chairman of the committee to figure how to nationalize health care. We on the right said that's a job for a professional, not the first lady, and she proved she couldn't handle the job.

When we complained of the backhanded inuendo slung about towards political enemies we were told "get a thicker skin, that's how the game is played".

But now, the right is feeling some vindication, especially after the South Carolina Primary. The media is having a hard time figuring out how to cover the Democratic primaries, Obama v. Billary Clinton, but they figuring out that Bill will say or do anything to get the wife elected to his old office, and even liberal commentators are taking notice.

Joe Klein, in Time's "Swampland Blog" called the South Carolina vote "moral reprimand delivered to Bill and Hillary Clinton by a united Democratic Party". He went on to say that "Clinton was quoted reminding people that Jesse Jackson had won the primary in 1984 and 1988--which was, of course, a history lesson not a race jab. Of course."

But, hey, Bubba has always "given lessons" and not taken jabs, at least that's what the media tried to lead everyone to believe for about 9 years. Seeing the MSM and especiallty liberal activists coming to the realization that "Clinton Politics" is synonomous with dirty politics is particularly thrilling for those of us who called it years ago. The question now becomes, can the Comeback Kids figure out another one, even after the folks who helped them to their other comebacks have figured them out?

Hillary is now focusing on Florida; stripped of it's delegates like Michigan for moving before Super Tuesday; in hopes of regaining some momentum. Funny thing, like Edwards and Obama she vowed to not campaign there, but her name is on the ballot and she's decided to make a showing. I'll still venture to say that if the delegates of those two states make the difference between a Clinton or Obama ticket we'll see a fight to get them seated. If it's Clinton that's behind you can bet we'll see some more interesting politics from the family.

So, for the folks on the right, enjoy basking in the afterglow of the Clinton meltdown, and for those on the left, sorry about that empty feeling that comes when you realize you've been hoodwinked for years by someone you thought you knew.

*Another quick link for you from Wall Street Journal on the South Carolina primary.

Read The Full Post!