John Sununu’s campaign has finally released a couple of ads that feature Sen. Sununu speaking directly to the camera, making his case to the voters. You can see them here and here.
I really like these ads, and I wish the campaign had done them sooner. Negative ads work. They are effective, and they provide important information about the candidates (as long as they are truthful). But I’m a big believer in using television to present yourself to voters directly. I think it helps counter negative attacks by letting viewers form a personal impression of you. John Edwards used this type of ad to win election to the U.S. Senate, and I think Barack Obama has used it effectively this year.
Sununu shows in these ads that he isn’t the demon in Jeanne Shaheen’s caricatures. And he is able to include quotes from a string of endorsements, which is a nice touch and shows that he isn’t just puffing himself up but that he has support from numerous editorial boards (for whatever that’s worth).
I think Sununu got a really late start in defining himself in this race, letting Shaheen do it for six years. Now we get to see if it’s too little too late.
On July 17, the New Hampshire Democratic Party sent a press release accusing Sen. John Sununu of taking campaign donations in exchange for letting “war profiteers” bilk the taxpayers. The press release did not include a list of the defense contractors the party was accusing Sununu of protecting in exchange for their campaign donations. We asked for the list. It included BAE Systems, one of New Hampshire’s largest employers.
Today, Jeanne Shaheen visits BAE’s Nashua offices. I hear that some employees are still very unhappy about being smeared as “war profiteers” by Shaheen’s Democratic Party. Shaheen has not commented on the press release, even though it was issued on her behalf. I wonder if some enterprising employee will ask her if she agrees with her party’s characterization. I hope one does. She needs to be put on the record. She has let her party get away with sliming BAE and its employees. Will she finally repudiate the smear, or will she continue to let it stand unchallenged?
The Concord Monitor’s editorial last Thursday is a useful reminder of the way statists view the relationship between people and their government.
I meant to blog this last week but ran out of time, so here are my belated thoughts on this offering from the paper of the state’s capital city.
The Monitor actually laments that oil and gasoline prices have fallen.
“The more the price of oil falls, the less shares of stock in alternative energy companies are worth. The decline, coupled with the credit crunch, has made it much harder to raise capital for things like wind farms and solar energy plants and to fund alternative energy research,” the paper’s editorial board writes. That, it asserts, is a very bad thing.
“Gasoline prices below $3 per gallon and lower heating costs are a blessing to consumers and to companies struggling to stay afloat in a bad economy. But lower fuel costs threaten to reverse the trend of driving less and conserving energy.”
To the Monitor, driving less and conserving energy are in and of themselves inherent goods. Why? Oddly, the editorial doesn’t mention global warming. It focuses instead on reducing our demand for foreign oil. High gas and oil prices encourage Americans to conserve energy and pursue alternatives to oil, therefore, according to the Monitor, the government must prop up prices:
“Congress should, for example, set a target price for petroleum-based fuels below which a small tax increase is levied on petroleum products - say 3 cents per gallon when regular gasoline hits $2.75 per gallon, 5 cents at $2.50 and so on. The tax would help keep consumption down and encourage the move to more fuel-efficient vehicles. The revenue raised should be used to help subsidize investments in energy alternatives, the return of rail and the insulation of (sic) income homes. The alternative, human nature being what it is, is to repeat the mistakes of the past and a return to a time when the chant, with respect to oil, was ‘Burn, baby, burn.’”
One could write a book on why this is a horrible idea. I’ll try to keep it brief.
First, government exists to protect us from encroachments on our liberty and to do a tiny number of things the market cannot do as effectively or as justly, such as provide courts of justice, police and fire protection, national defense and roads. From where does the state obtain the authority to decide which form of energy we ought to use to power our vehicles, homes and businesses (and which vehicles we should use — rail vs. automobiles), and then punish us for choosing a different one?
The editorial encapsulates the worldview of the far left. We know best what choices people ought to make, and therefore we must use the apparatus of the state to compel people to make the choices we have determined they should make.
There is no room for error in this view. It is premised upon a presumption that correct answers are easily obtained and conclusions made cannot possibly be flawed. The free-market view is entirely different. Advocates of leaving markets alone to decide such things as which fuel source people use believe that a few people, even the hundreds elected to our national government, cannot possibly have enough information to make such critical decisions.
How do the Monitor editors know what alternative fuel sources should get the most investment? How do they know which are the most promising? How do they know that new technologies won’t soon help us discover lots more oil, extract it less expensively, make it burn more cleanly, or make it go further in our engines, thus reducing the need to channel vast sums into alternatives?
How do they know which research teams will best use the money devoted to alternative fuel research? How do they know that oil companies and auto companies won’t find alternatives on their own given the enormous potential profits available for the first business to find an affordable alternative to the old gasoline-powered internal combustion engine?
Obviously, they don’t know the answers to any of those questions. Nor does anyone in the entire federal government. But the Monitor editors are willing to tax you more, taking money that you would otherwise spend to feed and clothe your children or heat your home, and gamble it on alternative fuel research that they haven’t the slightest idea how to evaluate.
Isn’t it better, and easier, to let wealthy investors risk their own money on alternative fuel research and let you keep yours to spend on your own needs?
You know, when she was young, Queen Elizabeth II looked an awful lot like Harpo Marx.
Somehow, this election has me thinking of monarchs and Marxes.
OK, so the price of a barrel of oil fell to less than $68 today. That’s down 54 percent from its high in July of $147.27.
THANK THE LORD that Congress put a stop to all them evil Wall Street speculators!
Oh. Wait. Congress didn’t.
Jeanne Shaheen, Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes all blamed speculators for the rise in oil prices and said that more heavily regulating the markets — even halting some speculation — was the key to bringing down oil prices. It wasn’t supply and demand that was causing the price to rise, they said. It was manipulation by oil companies and speculators, or runaway speculation. Or both.
They were spectacularly wrong. Their ignorance of the commodities markets (not to mention basic economics) was rivaled only by the certainty with which they incorrectly diagnosed the problem and prescribed the wrong cure.
Supply and demand were always the driving forces behind the oil price spike, and they are the driving forces behind its decline. Cutting the price of oil in half did not require government action, certainly not government restrictions on trading by speculators.
Attacking Wall Street traders was mindless pandering. Now that it is clear just how wrong these politicians were on one of the most important issues of the election, the question is whether they will pay any price for this at all. Their proposed remedies for the economic slump are no better than their proposed remedies for rising gas prices. And yet they probably will get away with promoting non-solutions fashioned out of ignorance because so many people mistakenly blame the White House and Wall Street for whatever goes wrong (or right) with the economy.
And by the way, remember the “emergency” in home heating costs that supposedly justified massive increases in state and federal subsidies for home heating oil because the price was expected to double from last year? Well, today’s price per gallon is only about 25 cents higher than the price last year. Wonder what the state will spend all that extra subsidy money on.
Comment from Steve P. in Bedford: I believe the Democrats and some Republicans that call for such idiocy as price-caps and curtailing speculation understand commodities just fine. But, they are cynically playing politics. They are putting their need for power ahead of the well-being of the nation and its citizens. We are seeing an awful lot of that this year.
Gov. John Lynch gets a D in the latest Cato Institute Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors.
Cato notes that Lynch was more frugal at first, but this year did not restrain spending. He’s relied heavily on cigarette tax hikes, which dropped his score in Cato’s rankings. And Cato faults him for not solving the ed funding situation.
Cato doesn’t mention the size of the latest budget increase, the tax and fee hikes that went along with it (aside from the cigarette tax increase), the overly rosy revenue estimates, the governor’s resistance to reforms that would save the state money (particularly in health and human services) and the governor’s initial refusal to say no to leftist interest groups.
I think that if Cato had been more fully aware of the extent of Lynch’s fiscal irresponsibility in this last budgeting session, he’d have gotten a big, fat F.
Conspicuously absent from last Thursday’s Barack Obama rally in Londonderry was Rep. Carol Shea-Porter. Second District Rep. Paul Hodes spoke, calling Obama a “statesman” and introducing Gov. John Lynch, who introduced Obama. Londonderry, though, is in Shea-Porter’s district. The campaign invited her to speak, but she turned them down. Why would she miss the opportunity to speak to more thousands of potential voters in her own district?
I asked Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley, who was at the event. He would say only that she wasn’t there. I asked around and got word from Shea-Porter’s campaign that she was busy campaigning that day. But it turns out she wasn’t stumping. She had “meetings” and phone calls, and later in the day she was busy preparing for her debate with Jeb Bradley. Meetings and phone calls certainly can be considered “campaigning.” I don’t think the campaign was lying. I just think it’s odd that she missed speaking before a big rally of motivated Democrats for meetings and phone calls.
Shea-Porter endorsed Obama during the primary (though after it appeared that he would win). By showing up to speak at his rally, she would’ve earned some exposure to 4,100 people, most of whom were probably residents of her district. She spoke at the Manchester rally last month before about 7,000 people, so surely she sees the utility in such exposure.
There’s nothing wrong with skipping that rally. Especially since Shea-Porter’s opponent, Jeb Bradley, doesn’t seem to be all that on the ball campaigning-wise and has dropped significantly in the polls since winning the nomination. It just seems to me like an odd missed opportunity. Man, those meetings must’ve been really important.
Now that was a debate! First, the questions were really good, and the candidates were not allowed to get away with dodging them. It makes such a huge difference when the questioners keep up the pressure.
Second, Horn was, dare I say it, a pit bull with lipstick. She was on full attack mode all the time. It made for a lively debate, to say the least. It would be hard to say who won, except that on points it was clear immediately that Hodes didn’t want to answer questions directly. So I have to hand the victory to Horn. Hodes dodged numerous questions at the start and let her claim a few easy victories before he got comfortable with the topics that were brought up and was willing to answer.
I wish more debates were like this one. It was informative and intense. I actually think I spent my Friday night well.
Comment from Laura in Bedford: Drew, Thanks for attending the debate and sharing with the rest of us.
ME: My pleasure.
What one foreign policy issue isn’t getting the attention it needs?
Horn: Energy is the one foreign policy question that is critically important and needs more focus. We can’t be held hostage to foreign countries for our energy sources.
Hodes: “I think one of the greatest challenges we face on foreign policy is the rising power of China… Made in the USA used to mean something, now everything is made in China and shipped over here.”
We need to engage with China to keep them from ruining the environment and taking over economically. “We must engage them in a profitabble, productive way…”
Make your case for domestic drilling.
Horn: “We have got to begin drilling today. It isn’t the whole solution. It doesn’t solve the problem by itself. But it is an important first step” toward bringing the nation to energy independence.
“And we need to drill where we know there’s oil. This is one of those tricky games they play in Washington.”
“I support increased domestic drilling everywhere where we know there is accessible oil.”
Off the coast of NH: “It would be on the table for me.”
Hodes: “I supported drilling on the 68 million acres… that the oil companies already have under lease and are permitted…. I then supported a compromise bill that would expand drilling offshore in the 100 mile range… and I did that because… it’s important to compromise.”
Really? You would’ve supported drilling within 50 miles of shore if that were on the table? I doubt it.
“What we need to do now as a nation is move as quickly as possible to a renewable economy.”
Drilling means more fossil fuel production and “more contriution to global warming… the seas will rise, the leaves will fall off the trees, and we’ll lose our ski season.”
Horn: “This is really typical Washington approach, kind of Washington-speak.” Use it or lose it is already the law of the land, she said.
“We need comprehensive energy reform…. We do have resources that will bring us past our immediate dependence of foriegn oil… I fully embrace your enthusiasm for alternative fuels” and NH is leading the way on that.
Hodes: “Now, with no discernible change in the world’s supply… the price is coming down… and the difference is speculation… and it has contributed wildly to fluctuations in the price of a barrel of oil… but I don’t think oil companies would have bought up leases to 68 million acres of land if they didn’t think they could drill on it…”
“I for one don’t want to see drilling off the coast of New Hampshire.”
Horn: Conservation is what dropped the price of oil this summer.
Should we intervene to keep Iran from going nuclear?
Horn: “Iran cannot be allowed to get nuclear weapons.” Ahmadinejad intends to “wipe Israel off the map,” so he must not be allowed to get nukes.
“We need to work in coalition with other nations.”
“I am someone who believes that the United States must always put the interests of our nation first.”
“I do not believe that we need to be involved militarily with Iran, that we need to invade Iran or anything like that. I don’t think it will be necessary.”
Hodes: Iran “poses an existential threat to Israel, our greatest ally in the region,” and therfore cannot be allowed to get nukes. “We must engage in muscular diplomacy… and no option should be taken off the table.”
Hodes summed up the home lending crisis this way: “All these bad loans that were written in the wild west of our deregulated lending environment.”
“What we really need to do is reform our bankruptcy laws.” “Sit down and rework the terms of your mortgages.”
Horn: “Where do we draw the line?” She asked if we are going to bail out every type of loan that isn’t being repaid — car and college, etc.
“There is some personal responsibility involved here for people who have taken on bad mortgages with full disclosure.”
“What this highlights is that we cannot wait until there is a crisis to take action.”
Hodes: “If I was in the pocket of the financial services industry, I wouldn’t have voted against the bailout not once, but twice.”
Actually, that’s a good answer.
Horn on Hodes twisting her words: “That’s kind of a Washington thing, I like how you do that.”
Ouch.
Hodes said his vote against the bailout was one of “conscience and substance” because there was lots of pressure to vote for the bill.
Horn: “Something needed to be done two years ago when you said you saw the problem coming to begin with.”
Comment from Laura Condon in Bedford: Hodes is right that this current financial crisis has origins in the bad loans written in the wild west days of our deregulated lending environment. But he needs a bit of prodding for full disclosure on this.
Origins actually go back further to Jimmy Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act and using Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae to get poor folks in housing…everyone deserves the American dream, yes? Follow up with Bill Clinton and federal mandates on banks requiring a higher and higher percentage of mortgage loans to go to the poor along with the groudwork for massive deregulation. Banks were forced to loosen loan standards no longer limiting housing costs to 28% of pay, but increasing to 40% or more (then there’s not enough cash left over for food, clothing, gas, electric). Folks were encouraged to be dishonest with no doc loans, not having to verify income or employment. Loans were made too easy with no money down and no closing costs. Predatory lenders told borrowers they could afford it, and borrowers did not take personal responsibility for their own budgets to see if they really could.
But there were folks who saw a crisis coming. Apparently George Bush even saw a crash coming, calling out the pending doom of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 2003, proposing new oversight (hard to believe that one, huh?). Democrats shot it down.
Others wanted to push these sub-prime loans and in fact, Barack Obama sued Citibank in 1995 for failing to issue enough of these loans to poor, black Americans who couldn’t afford them (folks who would eventually lose their homes to foreclosure). (Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance/Docket/Court 94 C 4094 (N.D. Ill.) And nowhere is this crisis of home ownership social engineering more dire than in Chicago where it was most heavily pushed.
In 2005 federal legislation was proposed to put the brakes on this run-away lending and tighten regulations (S-190 The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act). This legislation was co-sponsored by Sen. Elizabeth Dole, Sen. John McCain and Sen. John Sununu. Good folks here…give them your vote.
Hodes thinks we need to re-work mortgages of people who can’t afford them?
And Hodes, you can go ahead and share with us that you voted “no” both times because you were instructed to do so to boost your chances of re-election…a political move that had nothing to do with the merits of a bailout. We’re smarter than you think.
