From the left: Dems Make Bad Bet on Franken
Democrats willing to keep men accused of sexual harassment and assault in office in order advance “feminist” legislation overlooks the fact that “even a new partial standard that senators are not allowed to get away with it would be a large political victory in itself against sexism and harassment,” writes Ryan Cooper at The Week. Plus, getting rid of Sen. Al Franken and Rep. John Conyers would give the party back a shot at the moral high ground as they bash Republicans over Roy Moore. And though Conyers isn’t running for re-election, Franken staying in office might be the only way for the Democrats to lose his seat: “Since the allegations, Franken’s popularity has collapsed, falling from 53 percent to 36 percent. The opening for a Republican to win in 2020 would be a large one.”
From the right: Christian Leaders’ Moore Mistake
As for Roy Moore, social conservatives are making their own moral compromise with the GOP Alabama Senate candidate, says Heather Wilhelm at National Review: “Jerry Falwell Jr. recently threw in his support for Moore. Radio host and author Eric Metaxas has vigorously promoted theological defenses of why Christians can vote for Moore.” And Franklin Graham tweeted regarding Moore: “Whoever is without sin, let them throw the first stone.” And then there’s James Dobson, the respected founder of Focus on the Family, who cut a radio ad suggesting God needs Moore in the Senate. Wilhelm has a suggestion: “Seriously, Christian leaders: It’s okay to occasionally zip it when it comes to politics. There are better ways to be a witness for Christ than inserting yourself into a cringe-worthy Alabama Senate race.”
Campaign trail: Chelsea Clinton’s Arkansas Opportunity
If Tom Cotton vacates his Arkansas Senate seat to take over as director of the CIA, Politico’s Bill Scher has an idea for which Democrat should contest the open seat: Clinton. No, not Hillary — she isn’t a native Arkansan, and she lost the state to Trump by a mile. Bill? “He was born and raised in the state. He did win statewide time and time again, as state attorney general, governor (except for that one time) and president. And unlike Hillary, he does visit his home state regularly.” Yet he’d be dogged by the renewed focus on his sexual sins. That leaves one Clinton: “Arkansas is inhospitable territory for any Democrat. Therefore, the state party has little to lose by turning to Chelsea, and Chelsea has little to lose by returning home.”
Political scribe: Tax Plan Could Help Republicans in 2018
Don’t be fooled by the GOP tax plan’s low approval ratings, Josh Kraushaar warns Democrats at National Journal. It still could be a political winner. That’s because it’s conventional Republican policy and thus has more support throughout the party than other legislation, like the health-care bill, which means it could unify Republicans and get a boost from the base before the 2018 midterms. Plus, the Democrats’ main critique — that the cuts would sunset in 2025 — means it’s harder to whip the public into a frenzied opposition: “Polls show widespread dissatisfaction with the tax legislation, but because few voters will experience any burden as a result of the changes, the intensity of opposition has been muted,” Kraushaar writes. That could be enough to mitigate some of the 2018 midterm damage Republicans expect to endure.
Harvard profs: Colleges Earned Conservative Suspicion
Jack Goldsmith and Adrian Vermeule write at The Washington Post that more liberal university officials should be able to understand their role in conservative skepticism of higher education. Specifically, four interrelated trends. “First is the obvious progressive tilt in universities, especially elite universities.” Second is the fact that “the distinctive progressive ideology of elite universities is relentlessly critical of, to the point of being intolerant of, traditions and moral values widely seen as legitimate in the outside world.” Third, the leftist mobs who ensure that “conservative speakers of various stripes are being harassed and excluded with increasing frequency.” And fourth is “the public contempt of so many university academics for those who fund their subsidies.”
— Compiled by Seth Mandel
