Pat Allen: The View from Right Field

Where’s the Anti-Mormon Vote?

During Mitt Romney’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, one of the big questions, in the media, at least, is whether fundamentalists and evangelicals in the Republican Party would vote for Mr. Romney.  Conventional wisdom has been that evangelical voters were going to be a big problem for former Governor Romney.  After all, the implicit argument went, you know those bigoted, right-wing Republicans.  They oppose same-sex marriage because they don’t like gays.  They voted against Obama because he was black.  The big question in 2012 was going to be: Who did the evangelicals hate more: President Obama or Mormons?

There is only one trouble with this story-line.  When it comes to not wanting a Mormon to be President, it’s not the Republicans who are the bigots.  Hidden deep in an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal about this year’s election was this sentence: “Democrats in the poll were more likely than Republicans to express concerns about a Mormon president.”*  But Peter Hart, the Democratic half of the duo which conducts the poll, explained that this wasn’t because Democrats don’t like Mormons.  Rather, some Democrats were just using this question as a proxy for not wanting Mitt Romney to be president.  Now I have heard of voters coming up with phony policy differences to explain why they oppose a candidate when it’s really bigotry.  I have never before heard of somebody using bigotry as a substitute for policy differences.

In any case, yesterday’s Wall Street Journal poll isn’t the first one to identify where the anti-Mormonism is.  A Gallup poll in June of last year showed that while 18% of Republicans and 19% of independents would not support a Mormon for president, 27% of Democrats would not support a Mormon.

In other words, when it comes to anti-Mormonism, if you want to find the bigots, look left.

--------
* Neil King Jr. and Danny Yadron, “Obama, Romney Toe to Toe,” The Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2012; Laura Meckler, “One in Four Say Having a Mormon President Would Cause Concerns,” The Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2012.

Elizabeth Warren Doesn’t Want to Be a Native American – Except When She Does

There has been a big brouhaha in the Massachusetts Senate race recently involving Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic candidate.  Ms. Warren is a law school professor, and at various times in the past either she or the schools that she worked for claimed that she was a Native American, in other words, a minority hire.  This is a little tricky because the best Ms. Warren, or her supporters, have been able to come up with to support a claim that she is Native American is that her great-great-great-grandmother may have been Cherokee, which would make her 1/32nd Native American.

But it’s not whether Ms. Warren is Native American, or should be able to claim Native American status, if she is just 1/32nd Native American that is interesting.  What is interesting is how adamant Ms. Warren is that her Native American status had nothing to do with her getting various jobs:

"[According to a spokesperson,] Elizabeth has been clear that she is proud of her Native American heritage and everyone who hired Elizabeth has been clear that she was hired because she was a great teacher, not because of that heritage."

But what’s wrong with being hired because of one’s heritage?  Liberals are always defending affirmative action on the grounds that it gives a chance to minorities who would be otherwise overlooked or not properly considered.  It forces employers to really look at candidates and not just hire someone like themselves.  Also, minority hires in a university can provide the kind of diversity in a faculty which will encourage minority students to do better.

So why shouldn’t Ms. Warren be proud of being hired because she was Native American?  A liberal should be glad to be looked at as an affirmative action hire who has proved herself to be a success as a great teacher.  Because promoting minorities is what affirmative action is all about.  So why is Ms. Warren protesting so hard that she has not been an affirmative action hire?  Does she think there is something wrong with it?

Keeping Candidates’ Children Out of Politics

President Obama says his position on same-sex marriage has evolved – and it has evolved, in a manner of speaking.  It has evolved back to where it was 16 years ago when, as a candidate for the Illinois Senate, he answered a questionnaire by saying he supported same-sex marriage.  That’s an interesting type of “evolution,” but I’m going to skip over that for now because that is not the point of this post.  Rather, I wanted to talk about keeping candidates’ children out of politics.

President Obama has said, and I totally agree, that families should be off limits to political attacks.  The President’s spouse should not be attacked, and the President’s children definitely are off limits.  The trouble is the President doesn’t follow his own rules.  Here is part of what the President said when he was explaining why he is now supporting gay marriage:

“You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and, frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”

The trouble with the President using his children this way is that it is going to give some people the idea it’s okay for them to talk about the President’s children, too.  It’s not, but when the President uses his children to justify his policies, other people might be tempted to think they can use his family to criticize his policies. 

I don’t think that is right, and I don’t think that should be done.  But if families, and especially children, are supposed to be out of politics, then let’s keep them out of politics.  Both ways.

President Obama on Osama Bin Laden. John McCain on Heroes.

President Obama, and his campaign, are celebrating the anniversary of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  The Obama campaign has released a seven-minute video which includes Bill Clinton on the killing of Bin Laden.  The President himself, in a press conference with the Japanese prime minister, implied that Mitt Romney would not have sent the Navy SEALs in.  And President Obama flew to Afghanistan to sign an agreement with Afghan President Karzai* and to address the American people.  It was 4:00 am in Afghanistan, but just about prime time in the US.

The best comment on all of this may have been John McCain’s:

"I've had the great honor of serving in the company of heroes. And, you know the thing about heroes, they don't brag." 

---------
* I find it interesting that the President flew to Afghanistan personally to sign this agreement since, when he became president, he discontinued the regular personal communications that President George W. Bush had had with President Karzai.

"Psst: Mitt Romney Is Mormon – And They’re Weird"

As the Presidential campaign heats up (now that could be a cause of global warming), President Obama is celebrating the killing of Osama Bin Laden and trying to claim Mitt Romney would not have ordered it if Mr. Romney had been President.  (As if anyone believes President Obama on that one.)

Also, the Obama campaign is publishing the names of private citizens who have contributed to President Obama’s opponent, saying in effect*: “We’re the President’s campaign, and we know who you are and where you live.”  That’s a nice touch.  No hint of intimidation there.

So, here is the question for today:  When is the Obama campaign and/or its “friends” going to bring up Mitt Romney’s religion**, as in: “He’s a Mormon.  They’re weird.  They’re a cult.  We can’t have a Mormon in the White House.”  President Obama will stay above it all, of course, but it will be brought up.  The only question is when.

My guess is that the Democrats will wait until October.  It’s generally better to do something like that as late as possible.  If it’s right at the end of the campaign, it’s harder for your opponent to respond and for the press (or the blogs) to put out the real facts.  The only reason why they might do it earlier is if the Democrats get worried earlier and think they have to do something sooner. 

The only certainty is that Mitt Romney’s religion will be brought up as an issue by Democrats and that it will be nasty.

----------
* Kimberley A. Strassel, “The President Has a List,” The Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2012.  (The link should be good for a couple of days.)

** I realize Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer (D) tried to raise the issue about ten days ago, but there was no follow up by other Democrats, probably because they realized it was too early.  The Obama campaign has said Mitt Romney’s religion is not an issue, but wait until the race gets tight in October and see what Democrats do.

Update (5/3/12 8:00 am): I added quotation marks around the title of this post to make it clear that this is what I think other people will say, not what I think.  I apologize for any confusion.

Wisconsin: Maybe Not So Nice

Remember when U.S. Representative Gabrielle "Gabby" Giffords (D-AZ) was shot In January of last year, and so many people were concerned about the lack of civility in political discourse in the United States?

Well, here is what former Democratic Representative David Obey of Wisconsin, former Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, had to say about the effort to recall Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin:

“‘They [i.e., Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Ohio Governor John Kasich, and U.S. Representative Paul Ryan] genuflect Ayn Rand* three times a day before they go to work and they come in, whether it’s at the federal level or the state level, and they screw working people every time they turn around. It shouldn’t mystify people why (unions) are more active.  They have their backs against the wall. The governor has a switchblade out and it’s at their throat. So they’re going to fight back with everything they have.’”

That’s a nice, friendly comment.  A lot of civility there.  No animosity or exaggeration.  Just accusing Governor Walker of getting ready to slit the throats of his opponents with a switchblade knife.

It’s already been a long campaign season, and I’m afraid it’s going to get even longer.

---------
* The reference to Ayn Rand is, apparently, this month's Democratic talking point about Paul Ryan.  The President is making it, and Democrats up and down the line, like former Representative Obey, are picking it up, too.  It’s not true, but that doesn’t matter.  It’s the charge du jour from the DNC, and Democrats will make it until the next one comes along.

Wisconsin: The Drive to Recall Scott Walker: Look for the Union Label

As part of the process of trying to recall Republican Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Wisconsin Democrats are holding a primary election to see who will run against Governor Walker in the recall election.  Recalls in Wisconsin work like this:  Once enough signatures are submitted, a new election is scheduled.  Each of the parties then has to select its candidate for the recall election.  If a party has more than one candidate file to run, a primary is held.  The Democrats in Wisconsin have five people running in their primary.  Of the five, it is my understanding that the two big ones are Kathleen Falk, former county executive of Dane County (which includes Madison), and Tom Barrett, the mayor of Milwaukee.

While all Democrats want to get rid of Governor Walker, some of the unions have a preference as to which Democrat gets to try.  Josh Eidelson at Salon.com reports:

“Barrett’s run was actively discouraged by some unions that had held union contract negotiations with both him and Falk. … In an April 7 statement, WSEU [Wisconsin State Employees Union] wrote that whereas Falk had a history of ‘working with our members to solve problems,’ Barrett ‘wasn’t interested in working with us’ to get a collective bargaining agreement signed in the weeks before Walker’s anti-union bill passed ….  Wisconsin Education Association Council president Mary Bell says that Falk distinguished herself last year both by negotiating in good faith with union members to reach agreements before Walker’s bill passed and by traveling the state in support of recall efforts afterward.”

Let me see if I understand this argument.  The unions are supporting Ms. Falk because she rushed to get new contracts signed with them before the new law came into effect, so that these contracts could, among other things, cover things and do things that the new law wouldn’t allow. 

The unions and their supporters, of course, think this was a win-win for public employees and the public.  Their view is that it lets public workers negotiate with their employers on terms of employment, which is good, and which is just what workers in private industry get to do.  They dismiss the view that public employment is different than private employment because private sector unions don’t get to elect the people they are bargaining with.  In the public sector, however, unions can wind up negotiating with people they endorsed and helped elect to office, and maybe even contributed to, while it is the taxpayers who pay the bills.

Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey, tells about the time he heard then-Governor Jon Corzine tell a public employee union rally that he would fight to get them a good contract.  Governor Christie says he thought to himself: “[W]ho’s he fighting with?  Once he says that, the fight’s over.”*

Some people say that Governor Walker has gone too far in his law restricting public employees’ bargaining rights.  He had some good points, but he went too far.  I don’t live in Wisconsin, so I don’t know for sure.  What I do know is some of the things that have come from the new law.  Before the law was passed, the Wisconsin Education Association could, and in some cases did, negotiate for a clause in teachers’ contracts that required local school boards to buy health insurance from the WEA Trust.** 

One of the things Governor Walker’s new law provided was that unions couldn’t negotiate for that kind of a clause.  Which meant that school districts whose contracts came up for renewal after the new law took effect couldn’t be forced by contract to buy the health insurance for their teachers from the WEA Trust.  A number of school districts switched to other insurance companies, and some of them saved upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  One school district kept the WEA Trust as its health care insurer but got the WEA Trust to cut its price to meet a lower offer from another company.  Some districts used the savings to avoid teacher layoffs.  Others were able to avoid tax increases in a weak economy. (Here and here.)

So, did Governor Walker go too far?  I don’t know.  But when you hear public employee unions saying Governor Walker is right next to the devil (I don’t know which side), think about those school districts that aren’t laying off teachers or raising taxes because Scott Walker’s law let them buy the health insurance for their teachers from the most cost effective provider, instead of being forced by the union to buy it from the union’s own carrier.

And when unions praise Ms. Falk for rushing to get new labor agreements signed before Governor Walker’s bill came into effect, think about those school districts that didn’t have a choice to buy their health insurance from somebody other than the WEA Trust – and wonder who it is really good for.

---------
* Jennifer Rubin, “What is it about Chris Christie?”, Right Turn Blog, February 28, 2011 (printed), Washingtonpost.com.

** According to the WEA Trust, less than 30 school districts had such a clause.  Of course, less than 30 is more than zero.

Mitt Romney: If you’re looking for free stuff, vote for the other guy.

Question from woman in Peoria, Illinois: "So you’re all for like, 'yay, freedom,' and all this stuff. And 'yay, like pursuit of happiness.' You know what would make me happy? Free birth control."

Romney: "You know, let me tell you, no no, look, look let me tell you something. If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for, vote for the other guy. That’s what he’s all about, okay? That’s not, that’s not what I’m about."

See the video here.

Do Endorsements Matter In Presidential Primaries? Yes, for Mitt Romney

Some people claim that endorsements for president don’t matter. Voters make up their own minds, they say. Maybe endorsements matter for local offices, but not for president. Well, I disagree – at least a little.

I have been supporting Mitt Romney for President because I think he is the best candidate to beat President Obama, but I have problems with Governor Romney on some issues. I don’t like parts of his tax proposals. His idea to index the minimum wage, increasing it as inflation increases, is terrible. And he has not addressed the Obamacare/Romneycare problem as well as he should.

But last October I heard Representative Peter Roskam (R-IL), a conservative I like a lot, say some really good things about Governor Romney. On Monday both Eric Cantor (R-VA), House Majority Leader, and Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, people I respect for being knowledgeable and for being principled, endorsed Governor Romney. And former UN ambassador John Bolton is supporting Governor Romney. I don’t agree with Ambassador Bolton on everything, but I do where he is coming from, and if, coming from there, he supports Governor Romney, then that makes me feel better about Governor Romney.

Maybe these endorsements and these comments didn’t convince me to support Mitt Romney, but they make me much more comfortable in doing so.

Should President Obama Be Using His Family In Campaign Ads?

According to an article in The Washington Post:

“A new Internet ad by the president’s reelection campaign features a portrait of the first family asking supporters to ‘help the Obamas stand up for working Americans.’ …

In the months to come, political strategists expect to see the first family used as a political asset. …

‘The value of the family is enormous,’ said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. ‘The more you know this family and the more you think of Barack Obama in these terms, the harder it is to vilify him.’

During his presidency, Obama’s children have rarely been featured in such an overtly political way. He has been pointed about leaving family members, especially his children, out of politics.”

While I understand why President Obama may decide to include his wife, and children, in campaign ads, it is unfortunate. If somebody is used as “a political asset,” they are going to be viewed as a political target. I agree with President Obama that family members, especially children, should be left out of politics. But if you think they should be left out, then you need to leave them out.