Ted Cruz vs. Colin Allred

I just finished listening to the debate between Cruz and Allred for the U.S. Senate seat from Texas. Harvard Law (Cruz) is probably a better preparation for this kind of debate than the NFL (Allred), but Allred did a very credible job. Making sense of any of these debates requires doing a lot of reading between the lines and doing your own fact checking. My sense of the truth in this contest is that Cruz is a very right-wing Republican, who has caved to Donald Trump’s hold on the GOP. He is anti-abortion rights, so much so that he repeatedly refused to answer the question of whether he supported exceptions for rape and incest in anti-abortion legislation. This is not surprising given his earlier support for personhood for the unborn. Both candidates have voted for or opposed legislation that would make them appear to be very extreme. Unfortunately, legislative proposals, on both sides, are often performative setups. They are designed to force the other side to seem to take an unreasonable position based on distasteful elements included in the legislation. Here is my take on what both candidates would do in office.

Immigration

The Democratic Party, including Colin Allred, has been converted on immigration by recent experience. I believe that Allred will support the kind of immigration reform embodied in the bi-partisan legislation that Donald Trump killed, through people like Cruz. I believe that Cruz will do the same, once his party and Donald Trump can claim credit for it. I think Cruz will support Trump’s border wall, even in places where it makes no sense. I don’t think Cruz will oppose anything that Trump does in office. Sadly, I think this will include ill advised mass deportation programs and restrictions on legal immigration. I think this will hurt our agricultural, construction, hospitality, and home child and health care sectors. While additional immigrants may contribute to increased demand for housing, they also contribute significantly to America’s productive capacity in many areas, including housing. If Harris is President, I think Cruz can be relied upon to oppose whatever she supports, because he has Presidential ambitions that require that the issue of immigration remains a hot button issue.

Inflation

Irresponsible spending and irresponsible tax cuts are stimulative and in the absence of constraint by the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), they have been inflationary. The spurt in inflation that followed Covid had many causes but it was primarily due to loose monetary policy in the U.S. and other developed countries in the early days of the pandemic. The proposals offered by Allred and the Democrats generally are a mix of somewhat defensible public policies, like allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices and horrible policies, like price controls (labeled anti-price-gouging legislation). The key to avoiding a resurgence of inflation is preserving the independence of the Fed. Harris has promised to do this, Trump has said he wants a role in monetary policy. Political involvement in monetary policy generally leads to higher inflation. I doubt that Cruz has the political courage to oppose Trump on this issue or any other issue.

Foreign Affairs

Colin Allred is a supporter of U.S. aid to both Israel and Ukraine. Cruz is likely to be supportive of Israel under all circumstances, but is likely to oppose continued aid for Ukraine. He did vote against it. He is likely to adopt Trump’s America first views with respect to NATO and generally weaken America’s alliances.

Energy and the Environment

Allred and Cruz both say they favor an “all of the above” approach to energy production.

Allred and Cruz both objected to the ban on LNG exports, although in Allred’s case after having cast a vote against legislation that would have prevented the ban. Higher LNG exports are in the interest of Texas as well as the United States and Western Europe. Cruz has a rather bizarre view that limiting these exports hurts Texas agricultural interests. If anything, preventing LNG exports lowers domestic natural gas prices and the cost of fertilizer produced with natural gas.

On climate change, Allred seems to support the Democratic Party’s views. Cruz is a hard core climate change denier. I am fine with objecting to the targeted subsidy approach favored by Democrats on this issue. I am frustrated by Cruz’s and the Republican Party’s attempts to dismiss the problem rather than offer better proposals for dealing with it, like the carbon tax/tariff approach.

Political Courage and Bi-partisanship

I don’t really care if Ted Cruz hid in a closet during the January 6 attack on the capital. I don’t care if he flew to Cancun during the power outages in Texas. I do care that he appears to lack the necessary political courage to stand up to Trump. Allred made repeated references to his own bi-partisan reputation. Cruz claimed Allred almost always voted straight party line. Cruz claimed to have introduced a number of bills co-sponsored by Democrats. It is noteworthy that those bills were mostly about bipartisan pork, like highway construction, rather than politically controversial issues. The record clearly shows that Allred is a left of center politician but he is not in the same crowd as Warren or Sanders.

Cruz was instrumental in trying to overturn the 2020 election. He remains a defender of Trump’s false claims. Despite repeated insults to Cruz’s family, his wife, and to Cruz himself, Cruz continues to seek out Trump’s affection. The only explanation that comes to mind is blind political ambition.

Elimination of the Filibuster Rule

Cruz rightly points out that Allred would support Kamala Harris and vote to abandon the filibuster rule in the Senate. We view this as a serious mistake no matter what your political leanings are. Unfortunately, Trump also favors dumping the filibuster rule. Is there anyone who thinks that Cruz would stand up to Trump and defend the filibuster, if Trump leaned on him to vote against it?

The Endorsement

This is not a happy choice, but on balance I’d rather see Colin Allred in the Senate than Ted Cruz.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders is unquestionably the most left-wing member of the U.S. Senate. It is, therefore, impossible for a centrist independent to endorse him. Having said that, his opposition is uniformly unappealing. Gerald Malloy, the Republican candidate, notes that Vermont has a long tradition of sending Republicans to the Senate. Sadly, that was a different Republican Party. Both Malloy and the other opposition candidates to Sanders voice either wishy-washy, or antagonistic, attitudes toward U.S. support for Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. Some of them voice concern about the federal deficit, but none of them offer concrete proposals for dealing with it. Malloy is a Trump supporter and has received and welcomed Trump’s endorsement.

As much as I dislike doing this, I am going to have to remain on the sidelines with respect to the U.S. Senate race in Vermont.

My Criteria for Endorsing Candidates for U.S. Senate

Endorsements expressed in this blog are my own. If I persuade the Board of Governors to support these endorsements, they will become the official CIVPAC endorsement and will appear in the Candidate’s section of this website. If a majority of the Board of Governors choose to go with someone else, that endorsement will become the official endorsement and will appear in the Candidate’s Section of this website.

On the whole, I would prefer the Senate to be controlled by the party that does not control the White House. Unfortunately, this Presidential race is so close that I have no idea which party will control the executive branch. Given that uncertainty, I am inclined to treat each Senate match-up on its own merits.

Elizabeth Warren (D) vs. John Deaton (R)

Elizabeth Warren is one of my least favorite Senators and probably my least favorite Democratic Senator. (Please note that Bernie Sanders is an independent, since the Democratic Party is not far enough left for him.) She is a “soak the rich” populist who favors impractical and unconstitutional wealth taxes. She also favors price controls, as illustrated in her sponsoring so called “anti-price-gouging” legislation. Numerous Democratic leaning economists have pointed out how ineffective and counterproductive price controls are. She even appears to have influenced Kamala Harris’ decision to endorse “anti-price-gouging” legislation. She was instrumental in setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Commission, including its extra-legislative funding, which I view as unconstitutional. A key target of this Commission has been so-called “pay day lenders.” Restricting the availability of what she views as predatory financing denies many people, with no other options, their last hope in desperate circumstances.

The Republican Candidate for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts is John Deaton. To his credit, he defeated a Trump-backed candidate in the primary. He also describes himself as a centrist Republican. Unfortunately, he has an affinity for promoting cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is possibly the only regulatory issue on which I support Warren’s concerns.

The Endorsement

Despite my reservations on the cryptocurrency issue, I personally endorse Deaton because Warren is problematic on so many issues.

Ruben Gallego vs. Kari Lake

I have been trying to listen to all of the debates for the U.S. Senate. Mostly they have been fairly civil affairs. This debate is an exception. Kari Lake is the reason. She speaks over her opponent. She speaks when it is not her turn. She speaks beyond her time limits and generally pays no attention to the agreed upon rules. Given her continued disrespect for the voting process in the 2020 election and her own failed bid for Governor of Arizona in 2022, her disrespect for the debating rules should be no surprise.

Immigration

To hear Kari Lake speak, you would think there is only one issue in this election: immigration. If the question is inflation or the economy, the answer is building the wall. If the issue is housing, the answer is deporting illegal immigrants. Although it is not clear that she draws a distinction here between legal and illegal immigrants, since they both consume housing. If the issue is abortion, the answer is, bizarrely, protecting women from illegal immigrants. It is clear why she opposed the bi-partisan bill to do something about illegal immigration. Without this issue she has nothing.

Whatever Ruben Gallego may have said on the issue of immigration in the past, he seems to favor strong border protection now. This includes building a wall where those guarding the border think it will be helpful.

Foreign Policy

On foreign policy Kari Lake will certainly abandon support for Ukraine, thereby inviting further aggression by Putin. She seems to think it impossible for a smaller country to defeat a larger one, despite the evidence from Vietnam and Afghanistan. She also appears to have slept through history class when the lessons of the dangers of appeasement prior to WWII were discussed. She will support Israel, but so will Gallego.

The Filibuster Rule

I have to say that Ruben Gallego’s willingness to end the filibuster rule to legislatively codify Roe v. Wade disturbs me. That said, Trump has said he favors abandoning the filibuster rule and it is hard to imagine Lake opposing anything Trump wants. Sadly, I think the filibuster rule does not have a long life expectancy, no matter who controls the Senate.

Abortion

Democrats have over reached on this issue in the past. But Gallego’s current position and that of the Democratic Party, i.e. legislatively re-establishing the rights under Roe v. Wade on a national level, is appealing. It is certainly more appealing to me than a mix of state legislation, including some draconian laws that essentially ban abortion under all circumstances and attempt to limit the ability to travel to receive an abortion. Kari Lake seems to think that defending the rights of some states to ban abortion is a more important defense of liberty than placing the issue in the hands of individual women. This is an odd notion of liberty that reminds me of the Confederacy claiming that they seceded from the union to defend freedom.

The Endorsement

Ruben Gallego is no centrist but Kari Lake is beyond the pale. I, therefore, endorse Gallego for the U.S. Senate from Arizona.

Open Senate Seat in Maryland

Larry Hogan

Larry Hogan is the popular, former, two-term, Republican governor of Maryland, a deeply blue state. He was the co-chair of No Labels, a centrist political organization. No Labels tried to recruit him as a centrist alternative to a Trump-Biden rematch. Hogan turned down that option because he did not want to be a spoiler and aid Donald Trump in the process. He has been a vocal critic of Trump. He rejected Trump’s endorsement saying he did not seek it and did not want it. He is pro-choice and has vowed to introduce national legislation to re-establish the rights under Roe v. Wade. He opposes packing the court and ending the filibuster rule. He supports aid for Israel and Ukraine and supports America’s role in NATO. If I did not endorse Larry Hogan, it is hard to imagine a Republican that I would endorse.

Angela Alsobrooks

Even given all of the above, I could be persuaded to stand on the sidelines in this race if the Democratic candidate were a centrist Democrat. Angela Alsobrooks is not a bad candidate, but she is a hardline Democrat. Even Larry Hogan says he likes and respects her. Her objections to Hogan appear to be almost entirely that he is a Republican. At one level this argument is effective, because a Republican Senate means that powerful committee chairmanships will go to Senators that neither Alsobrooks nor I want to see hold that power. However, she has pledged to be a reliable vote for Kamala Harris on the filibuster and packing the court. When asked if there was anything in the Democratic platform that she disagreed with, she reiterated her support for it and mentioned that she had managed to move the new FBI headquarters from Virginia to Maryland, winning out despite appeals from the two Democratic Senators from Virginia. (I don’t think that was responsive.)

As an aside, there is a charge that Alsobrooks has claimed homeowner tax credits and exemptions as an elderly, low income, primary resident when she was none of the foregoing. She claims that this was an error that she is rectifying, and even Larry Hogan seems to accept this explanation.

The Endorsement

I endorse Larry Hogan for the U.S. Senate from Maryland. I only wish that there were a half dozen more Republicans like him that I could endorse. At this point the polls suggest that he is likely to lose, although by a far smaller percentage than Donald Trump in Maryland. I think Hogan could have won this race if he had run as an independent, pledging to caucus with whichever party agreed to retain the filibuster, leave the Supreme Court alone, and legislatively enact the protections of Roe v. Wade.

Amy Klobuchar vs. Royce White

As Democrats go, I like Amy Klobuchar. She positions herself as a moderate Democrat and, considering the rest of the party, she is a moderate. Despite preferring her to most of the rest of the field in the 2019 primaries based on her policy positions, I did not think she was a viable Presidential candidate. Sadly, she sounds unsure in debate.

She is very popular in Minnesota and the Republican Party had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find someone to run against her. Royce White is a former professional basketball player who embraces a variety of populist positions and conspiracy theories. His principle appeal to some voters appears to be his MAGA connections. Klobuchar appears to be a near certain winner in this race. I have not been able to find a televised debate between them. Here is an account of a debate between them at a local Minnesota event. He comes across as strange. She is very focused on farm exports, which should make her very antagonistic to Trump’s tariff plans.

The Endorsement

This is not a hard call. I endorse Amy Klobuchar in 2024 for the U.S. Senate seat from Minnesota.

Tim Kaine vs. Hung Cao

I liked Tim Kaine a lot more before he became Hillary Clinton’s V.P. candidate. Virginia is a politically moderate state and Tim Kaine reflected that. It seemed to me that once he became the V.P. candidate, he tacked to the left to appeal to the base of the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, as Democrats go, he is something of a moderate, center-left candidate. His opponent Hung Cao, has hard right views that are consistent with those of his most significant endorsement, Donald Trump. It is actually hard to distill Cao’s positions from listening to his debate performance. His military service and education are to his credit, but it did not prepare him for politics or public policy debate. In general, he simply ignores the question and gives a rambling discussion of a related or unrelated issue. Kaine is obviously better at this and at least gives the appearance of answering the question.

Immigration

Cao, like many Republican candidates in this cycle, tends to blame most public policy problems on illegal immigration. One wonders what these candidates would say if Trump had not intervened to prevent the passage of the bi-partisan immigration act. Yes, he is right that the Biden administration waited too long to do something, but he appears to endorse mass deportation, which would be harmful to the economy. I am not sure whether Cao, like many of his Republican peers, blames immigrants for high housing costs. It would be ironic if he did, since he is a refugee himself. He and his family are taking up housing that could add to the supply for native born Americans. Does he find fault in this? He does say that immigrants should wait in line for citizenship. I am guessing he, at least, would draw a distinction between legal and illegal immigration, but many in his party don’t. I wonder how he feels about JD Vance’s view that those who have not grown up here with generational roots in the community can never be fully American.

Inflation, the Economy, Energy and Climate Change

Every country in the G10, America’s economic peers, experienced the negative impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Some experienced slightly lower inflation at the cost of significantly lower economic growth and employment. I would never claim that all of the stimulus programs supported during this era were ideal, but the decision to engage in fiscal stimulus, under the circumstances, is certainly defensible. I suspect the rest of the G10 now envy our growth and employment record.

Kaine supports the Biden administration’s policies and argues that bringing down prescription drug prices, attacking “price-gouging,” and subsidizing rent and housing purchases are the answers to higher costs. Allowing Medicare to negotiate over drug prices might be good policy in its own right, but it has little to do with the overall economic issue. Anti-price gouging legislation and subsidies for rent and new house purchases are counter-productive. In this regard, Kaine notes that the Republican Governor of Virginia has also threatened the use of state level “anti-price gouging” legislation. This helps explain why I, and so many other Americans, are independents.

It did not come up in the debate, but Hung Cao appears to believe that climate change is a hoax.

Cao, seems to think that energy independence is the best solution for the American economy. Kaine touts the Biden administration’s record and making America energy independent. All of this is nonsense on both sides. Neither side scores any points with me on this issue.

Abortion

Kaine supports codifying Roe v. Wade legislatively at the national level and also supports some restrictions on abortion like those that apply in Virginia. I think national legislation to codify Roe v. Wade is a good idea. Unfortunately, it is not likely to be accomplished without abandoning the filibuster rule in the Senate, which I view as a mistake. If this legislation is passed, it will likely face a challenge on constitutional grounds. That is a complicated question, but I am sure that there are constitutionally defensible actions that Congress can take to protect reproductive rights.

Cao has advocated for personhood rights from the point of conception. As Kaine points out, it is hard to reconcile this with Cao’s current position on IVF or any reasonable position on reproductive right in general.

The 2020 Election and Jan 6th

Hung Cao has been evasive on the outcome of the 2020 election but has voiced support for the Jan 6th protestors, suggesting that they should be compensated.

The Endorsement

This is not a difficult decision. Kaine is a moderate Democrat, who I think would be even more moderate if his party would let him. Cao is a strange choice for the party. His only other notable endorsement, besides Donald Trump, came from Oliver North, notable for many things, including being head of the NRA. Surely, the Republican Party can do better than this.

I endorse Tim Kaine for re-election to the U.S. Senate from Virginia.

.

Process of Evaluating the Candidates for the U.S. Senate in 2024

It seems likely that the Senate will flip from being narrowly controlled by to the Democrats (51-49, including the independents who caucus with the Democrats) to a narrow Republican majority after the 2024 elections. Manchin’s (Democrat turned Independent) retirement in deep red West Virginia pretty much guaranteed at least one more seat for the Republicans. Other factors make it even more likely. Most of the U.S. Senate seats that are up for election this year in swing states are currently held by Democrats. Most of the Republican seats that are up for election are in safe states.

Control of the Senate will probably be decided in a couple of key races including Montana and Ohio. Both of these states have incumbent Democratic Senators, Tester and Brown, respectively. Both are running in solidly red states and Tester is behind in the polls and Brown is slightly ahead.

Tester vs. Sheehy

If Trump wins, I would very much like to see a Democratic Senate. If Harris wins, I would like to see a Republican Senate. The Presidential race appears as close to a toss up as one could imagine, so I will put the issue of balancing the President aside in thinking about my preferred victors in the Senate.

I prefer Tester to his Republican opponent mostly on the basis of foreign policy and abortion rights. Tester is a supporter of continued aid to Ukraine; his opponent Sheehy is not. Sheehy comes across as an America first isolationist. He seems to hold the bizarre view that a well funded military that sits on the sidelines, wishing our allies well but doing nothing, is a recipe for global peace and American security. I think he must have been dozing during history class when they discussed the causes of WWII. On abortion rights, Tester wants to legislatively re-establish the right of a woman to an abortion before fetal viability. Sheehy wants to tar Tester with the more extreme views of some Democrats on this issue.

I listened to a debate between these two and I have to say they were remarkably civil to one another. One thing does stand out. Tester is on the centrist wing of the Democratic Party. He cites rankings that list him as one of the most bi-partisan Senators. Sheehy is a fairly typical Trump era Republican. On balance, I personally prefer to keep Tester in the Senate.

Sherrod Brown vs. Bernie Moreno

On two issues, I strongly favor Brown over Moreno; support for Ukraine and abortion rights. Their positions on these issues are clear and polar opposite. Brown supports abortion rights and aid to Ukraine. Moreno opposes both.

On other issues, I’m not so sure. Brown has been an ardent supporter of organized labor. He gets a 100% lifetime score from the AFL-CIO. He ranks nearly as far left as it is possible to rank on economic issues, on the ontheissues.org graphic of the political spectrum. Moreno appears to be almost as staunchly conservative, with a whiff of populist.

I decided to leave this race alone if Moreno was at least silent on Trump’s assertion that the 2020 election was stolen. When I looked it up, I found this. So I think I will hold my nose and personally endorse Sherrod Brown. I will not even propose to our Board of Governors that CIVPAC officially endorse him.

The Process: The Lesser of Two Evils

Our Board of Governors struggled with whether or not to endorse a candidate for President this year. There was no support for endorsing Donald Trump. I think, we might well have endorsed Nikki Haley, if she had been the candidate. A few insisted at first that we endorse no one. Everyone agreed that Harris is too far left for an enthusiastic endorsement from a centrist group. In the end, we decided to endorse Harris, while giving voice to our reservations about her left- wing record and impulses.

Her rhetoric, at least, has become more centrist. We understand that candidates will adjust their policy positions based on the constituency they hope to represent and that California is further left than America is as a whole. Her positions on foreign policy and respect for the independence of the Federal Reserve Board are consistent with our own. We disagree strongly with her positions on price controls and redistribution. For a review of the policy comparisons you can read some of the prior posts in this blog or go to the official CIVPAC endorsement for a more wide ranging comparison of Harris vs.Trump.

If Harris wins she is very likely to have to deal with a Republican Senate, which should force her administration to govern more from the center than she, or her party, might prefer. She appears to be sane and competent. We hope that she will recognize that victory in this election is no mandate to govern from the left.

Centrist Independent View on Immigration

The Centrist Independent Voter supports immigration reform with a preference for a more merit based system, greater emphasis on border security, expanded immigration courts to permit rapid adjudication of asylum claims, a method for screening asylum claims that does not leave the system open to abuse, a significant increase in the number of legal immigrants admitted to the U.S., and a path to legal residence (not citizenship) for those who are currently here illegally but have no other criminal record and who are willing to pay a fine of some sort for having entered illegally. For details see our policy proposal on immigration.

A Merit Based System

By a merit based system, we do not mean that we would restrict immigration to an elite group. Rather we would admit immigrants based on the economic value that they contribute to our society. This might include increasing the number of immigrants with advanced degrees in the sciences, but it also might mean an increase in the number of immigrants who would be joining the agricultural labor force. It would not necessarily mean a reduction in the number of immigrants admitted based on family connections, but it would mean that the increase in legal immigration would be based on adding value to the U.S. labor force.

Why Not a Path to Citizenship

There is a belief on the part of Republicans that Democrats favor immigration as a method for tilting political demographics in favor of the Democratic Party. The best way to dispel this concern is to limit any path to legal status for illegal immigrants to legal residency without citizenship.

Kamala Harris on Immigration

Harris has committed herself to the bi-partisan legislation crafted earlier this year in the Senate. She also supports creating a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. She supports expanded border security, but she opposes a border wall.

The bi-partisan legislation that Harris supports is, to my mind a good step. Unfortunately, it should have been proposed earlier, when it would not be seen as an attempt to diffuse a potent political issue. Having said that, the legislation that the House Republicans demanded was not a serious attempt at compromise.

Donald Trump on Immigration

Donald Trump seems to view immigration, both legal and illegal, as a threat to American culture, national security, and the economy. He makes outrageous and unsubstantiated claims about the impact of illegal immigration on crime. (In this regard, it is important to note that the plural of anecdote is not data.)

JD Vance went out of his way in his acceptance speech to note that he rejects the notion that America is an idea. He emphasized that America is also a shared common history and shared community. This view makes it pretty much impossible for immigrants to be viewed as fully American. I think that was his point.

Trump supports a massive deportation of illegal immigrants that would be harmful to the American economy, particularly the agricultural sector and residential construction.

A Centrist Independent View

We need to control the border. We need to reform the asylum system so that it cannot be easily gamed. Because of the huge backlog of asylum claims (cases can take many years to resolve), people seeking economic opportunity can easily make the decision that a weak claim to asylum at least gets them into the country and gives them a number of years to enjoy the benefits of living here. So why not come? If claims could be resolved in a matter of months rather than years, the incentive to make the dangerous journey would be dramatically reduced. The bi-partisan bill at least attempted to address this core issue. The Republicans have not suggested a reasonable compromise that would make a Centrist Independent Voter think that they take the issue seriously. Closing the border is not a reasonable compromise and would not be in America’s self interest.

On this issue, I would give a very weak nod in Harris’ direction. Not to the 2019 Kamala Harris, but to the 2024 Kamala Harris.