Hmm: Marco Rubio schedules “major speech” on foreign policy

Every move he makes from now until Romney chooses a VP will be seen through the lens of veepstakes maneuvering, no matter what Rubio’s true motivation might be. That said, it’s hard to believe the timing of this announcement is a coincidence. Today was his first big photo op with Romney on the stump, and speculation about Rob Portman has been much hotter lately than speculation about Rubio himself. This looks like his way of reinserting himself into the conversation and blunting the criticism that he’s not yet ready to be president in a pinch. Foreign policy is as core an Article II function as it gets, so here he comes to show that he’s qualified:

    Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida will deliver what his staff bills a “major speech on the future of U.S. foreign policy” this week, the senator’s office announced Monday.

    Rubio, considered to be a top vice presidential pick for likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney, is set to speak Wednesday at The Brookings Institution, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C.

    His remarks will focus on “whether U.S. global leadership is sustainable and even necessary in the 21st Century,” his staff said in a statement, without releasing further details.

I’m keen to hear what he says this time because thus far Rubio’s distinguished himself as being a hawk in the neoconservative mold. Watch the second clip below of him making the case for nonmilitary intervention in Syria to help the resistance free the country from Assad. He’s right in line with McCain, Lieberman, Graham and other prominent Senate hawks on that. Is Romney willing to double down on interventionism by choosing him as VP when even a majority of Republican voters lately say they want out of Afghanistan? In one sense, there’s little risk to doing so since Obama’s hands are tied on the issue; the guy who ignored the War Powers Act to join a coalition in Libya isn’t about to knock anyone else for being too interventionist. (So hawkish is Rubio that he passed on a chance to criticize Obama for that in his WSJ op-ed on Libya last year, even though it’s the worst case of overreach in Obama’s experiments with executive power.) The question is, after 10 years of war, are there more votes to be had among centrists and indies by taking a more cautious line? What does having an outspoken interventionist on the ticket do to help Romney?

Should be interesting — especially his thoughts on how much longer to stay in Afghanistan.
e=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

Paul captures 20 of 24 Minnesota delegates in CD conventions

It’s tough these days to be a Republican in Minnesota.  While the party managed to take control of both chambers of the state legislature in 2010 for the first time in decades, the organization is deeply in debt, thanks to mismanagement under previous leadership, and seems at times in total disarray.  A sex scandal in the state Senate leader’s office that forced then-majority leader Amy Koch to give up her position didn’t help either.  The latest stumble has national implications, however:

    Minnesota will send 40 delegates to the Republican National Convention. Twenty of the 24 delegates based on congressional districts were awarded to Texas Rep. Ron Paul in selection processes that concluded this weekend.

    Thirteen Minnesota delegates will be allocated based on the results of a statewide convention in May, according to Paul campaign senior adviser Doug Wead.

    Wead wrote on his blog that GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney is an a “panic” after the Paul landslide. Similar efforts to bolster the Texas congressman’s delegate count are underway in Iowa, Colorado, Maine and other states.

    “[A] number of Romney Hawks are now deeply concerned that Ron Paul has already laid the groundwork for similar success in six more caucus states,” Wead wrote.

In Minnesota, delegates get chosen in congressional-district conventions, and they are not bound to any candidate.  I ran for one of these positions in CD-02 on Saturday as part of a “unity slate” backed by GOP candidates for leadership positions in the organization.  None of us even came close to winning; we later found out that the closest anyone else came to winning those slots was more than 100 votes behind the second and third place finishers, who tied.  The same tie occurred when electing alternates.

So what happened?  Paul supporters organized at the local level and got themselves elected as delegates to CD conventions.  They then showed up to the conventions — unlike some others — and played by the rules.  At our convention, there were no disruptions, no demonstrations, no attempts to hijack the proceedings.  The Paul supporters just organized effectively and outboxed the party establishment.  My radio partner Mitch Berg reported that the same thing happened in CD-04, but worries more about what comes next:

    Some of their leadership was motivated by fairly palpable anger over the “way they were treated in 2008″, when quite a few GOP activists gamed the system to keep the first wave of Paul supporters out of power.  To their political credit, they spent their four years organizing, and did a good job of it.

    Less to their credit?  While anger is a good motivator, “anger at the inner workings of a political party” has, I’m going to guess, a short shelf life.   And at least in the Fourth CD, the anger was manifested by ballot.  The twitter stream during the convention indicated that at other districts, Paul supporters booed Dan Severson and Pete Hegseth, whose main transgression was “not being Kurt Bills”, the Paul crowd’s candidate for Senate, or refusing to stand to support John Kline at the 2nd District convention when he was re-endorsed. …

    While the crowd of Paul supporters at the convention Saturday carefully replaced their “Ron Paul” posters and stickers with “Kurt Bills” goodies, and voted to endorse Tony Hernandez by a 190-5-5 margin (after running a skillful campaign to win support from most of the establishment and Paul crowds), I have yet to hear a lot of support for, or even especially much awareness of, races farther down ticket or, more importantly, for candidates who get endorsed even if they’re not on the Paul slate.

    Now, I know that there are a lot of good, committed people among the Paul crowd who are committed to using their positions in the GOP to work for the party, not just a candidate or two.

    But I get a different impression from some of their leadership.  Ronald Reagan once said that if someone agrees with you 70% of the time, it doesn’t make them 30% your enemy.

    And from some of the Paul crowd’s leadership, I do get the impression that, whether motivated by single-candidate zeal or roiling anger over 2008 or one of the mind-boggling number of byzantine interpersonal pissing matches that seems to motivate so much of CD4 GOP politics no matter who the nominee or the cause celebre or what the defining issue is, the Paul crowd’s leadership, in the district and beyond, sees “70% friends” as “30% enemies”.

The Paul campaign wants to believe that they can replicate this outcome in other caucus states, and it’s certainly possible.  But in Minnesota, they had an opening left by a party in serious disarray.  How serious?  They may soon find themselves homeless:

    The Minnesota Republican Party is facing eviction for nonpayment of more than $111,000 in rent at its longtime headquarters near the Capitol.

    Republican Party Chairman Pat Shortridge tried to assure party faithful on Monday that he expects the party will keep its home office, but acknowledged that the party has not paid a full month’s rent for a year.

    “We’re not going to be evicted,” Shortridge said, although the eviction matter is due to be heard in Ramsey County District court next Tuesday. He added that the party is “continuing to negotiate on the back payments as well as on a lease that better fits both our space needs and our budget.”

    The possible eviction is the latest blow for a state Republican Party that is swamped with debt and financial problems. The party, $2 million in arrears on bills and debt related to the 2010 gubernatorial recount, is being investigated by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board for inaccurate campaign reporting.

This isn’t the fault of Shortridge, who just recently took the party chair position to try to right the ship.  The state GOP has had to focus on rebuilding its fiscal position more than the internal and external politics of the 2012 cycle.  Without that kind of focus, the party didn’t have the resources to deal with the Paul organization, and the delegate wins are one consequence.  That’s actually a minor consequence compared to what will happen if the state GOP doesn’t recover in time to organize for its effort in November to hold their legislative advantages, to say nothing of the mission to replace Amy Klobuchar in the US Senate.

Even if the Paul organization managed to steal a march in the caucus states, it’s not likely to damage Mitt Romney, at least not directly.  Rick Santorum was winning more of the caucus states, so the delegates will mostly come from his column, not Romney’s.  The only real threat will be that Paul delegates might embarrass the party at the convention by staging some kind of organized demonstration, but Ron Paul himself would probably keep that from happening; he wants to build the organization so that his son can use it within the GOP, not to excise Rand from the GOP.  And once again, the Paul supporters in the CD-02 convention didn’t aim at disruption at all — just victory for their cause.

Tragic turn to NC Democratic Party turmoil

We’ve had some fun with the scandal in the North Carolina Democratic Party leadership so far, but the latest update from the Daily Caller takes a turn for the tragic.  The man at the center of the scandal, former executive director Jay Parmley, had been accused of sexual harassment against a former male employee, which the party settled with a sealed agreement.  However, Parmley has also been accused by his former girlfriend of infecting her with HIV, and offering health insurance through the party afterward:

    Rebecca Burgin, a long-time former girlfriend of former North Carolina Democratic Party executive director Jay Parmley, told The Daily Caller that she believes Parmley infected her with HIV.

    Parmley resigned on April 15 amid sexual harassment allegations from a former young male staffer.

    Burgin, a 29-year-old Oklahoman, has shared her story with TheDC, including the revelation that Parmley’s lawyer offered her health coverage, paid for by the Democratic National Committee, to manage her illness. She ultimately declined that offer, fearing it would constitute insurance fraud. Parmley, she said, abandoned her a few months later.

    On April 13, TheDC first exposed allegations, leveled in December by former North Carolina Democratic Party communications staffer Adriadn Ortega, that Parmley showed him a picture of a penis, gave him unwanted shoulder rubs and made apparent sexual advances toward him. Ortega also alleged that Parmley discussed with him in detail his past sexual activity, including “solicit[ing] sex from gay websites.”

    Parmley’s ex-girlfriend Rebecca Burgin told TheDC that Parmley forever changed her life by making her HIV-positive. She’s worried, she said, that Parmley may have done to someone else what he did to her.

Be sure to read it all.  When she approached Parmley about her HIV-positive status, he told her he wanted out of the relationship.  Later, she hired an attorney who got the NC Democratic Party to offer her what was essentially family coverage on Parmley’s employment status.  However, Burgin eventually wondered whether that would be legal at all, since the relationship was over and the two no longer shared a household, and instead opted to pay for COBRA coverage herself.

This makes the scandal much more grim, and it couldn’t come at a worse time for North Carolina Democrats — and Barack Obama.  He’s due to speak in Chapel Hill today, but don’t expect him to discuss gay rights issues, even though Democrats are pushing against Amendment One:

    Two weeks from now, North Carolina will hold a public referendum on what could become one of the toughest anti-gay measures in the country: a far-reaching proposal to amend the state constitution to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships. But President Obama is not expected to touch the subject when he appears in Chapel Hill on Tuesday — even though it is roiling the electorate there.

    Instead, Obama will talk about college loans, his aides said, kicking off a two-day, three-state tour designed to energize the youth vote. His delicate sidestep of Amendment One, a ballot initiative to be decided May 8 that would recognize marriage between a man and a woman as the only legal domestic partnership in North Carolina, is seen by some as another sign that he is not fully committed to gay rights — an interpretation that could dampen the enthusiasm of the young voters he is trying to court.

    “It’s a little bit of a missed opportunity,” said Josh Orol, 20, a sophomore at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a leader of a campus movement to defeat Amendment One. “I didn’t expect him to talk at length about it. I know he has come out publicly against it. But I sort of hoped he would at least name-drop a little bit. It’s disappointing.”

I guess Obama is still evolving on same-sex marriage.  The tragic turn in the Parmley scandal won’t make it any easier. In the meantime, keep Rebecca Burgin in your prayers.

New residential home sales fall 7.1% in March; Update: USA Today predicts “subpar” economic growth this year

b

The string of bad economic news to close out Q1 continued today with the Census/HUD announcement of new residential sales in March.  The seasonally-adjusted annual rate of sales fell 7.1% from February, although there are a few glimmers of good news in the decline:

    Sales of new single-family houses in March 2012 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 328,000, according to estimates released jointly today by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This is 7.1 percent (±20.7%)* below the revised February rate of 353,000, but is 7.5 percent (±19.6%)* above the March 2011 estimate of 305,000.

    The median sales price of new houses sold in March 2012 was $234,500; the average sales price was $291,200. The seasonally adjusted estimate of new houses for sale at the end of March was 144,000. This represents a supply of 5.3 months at the current sales rate.

The inventory number gives a little more reason for optimism.  After more than three years of declines in new-home construction, the light at the end of the tunnel is at least in sight.  An inventory of five to six months is reasonable and manageable, and will encourage more production — assuming demand rises.  Unfortunately, as more foreclosures get dumped into the market this year, demand for new homes will probably remain near the bottom as buyers look for deals.

Reuters takes the glass-half-full approach, in part because previous estimates for December, January, and February got revised upwards:

    New U.S. single-family home sales dropped in March to their lowest level in four months, but the reading still beat analysts’ expectations as the government said sales in prior months were higher than initially thought.

    The Commerce Department said on Tuesday sales slipped 7.1 percent to a seasonally adjusted 328,000-unit annual rate.

    Home sales in February were revised higher to 353,000 units, the fastest pace since November 2009, up from the previously reported 313,000 units.

Unfortunately, this comes in tandem with a poor report on resales in March, which fell 2.6% from February as well.  At least one-fifth of those sales were to investors, not families looking to own, which means that actual demand for ownership looks very soft indeed.  Recent jobs reports give no indication that demand will strengthen, either.  While the markets appear to be approaching a bottom — prices rose in resales in March, for instance — there is little indication that any rebound is in sight.

Update: Meanwhile, don’t expect anything better from the rest of the economy this year, USA Today warns:

    Rather than a breakout surge in economic growth, mainstream forecasters say, Americans should expect the U.S. economy to slog forward for another couple of years.

    The economy grew at a subpar annual rate of 1.7 percent last year, down from 3 percent the year before. The consensus forecast for this year now is for growth of 2 to 2.5 percent.

    The U.S. economy is expected to slow later this year, dragged down by slowing global growth, rising anxiety about the elections and the specter of gridlock in Washington over urgent tax, spending and debt deadlines. The Bush-era tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and the payroll tax cut of the past two years expire at year’s end, when last year’s debt deal also will force across-the-board cuts in federal spending unless Congress and the president strike new deals, but there’s no consensus on that.

    A spate of recent indicators punctuated fears that the economy is stalling. March delivered only 120,000 new jobs, and the latest manufacturing and real estate data softened. Some economists say the economy’s strong six-month run through March might not be sustainable.

It actually wasn’t all that strong, either.  The annualized GDP growth rate for 2011Q4 only came to 3.0%, which isn’t weak but isn’t exactly strong.  From what we’re seeing in March, 2012Q1 is likely to finish well under that mark — but we’ll get our first look at that on Friday.

Pollmania: Obama leads Romney by seven nationally, by nine in New Hampshire

Second look at dog-eating?

That’s the biggest lead he’s had against Romney dating back to last August. Follow the link and scroll down and you’ll see that it’s independents who are driving it, flipping from a 45/39 split in favor of Mitt 10 days ago to a 45/43 in favor of O. Gallup reasons that a dip in gas prices must be behind it, but the dip we’re talking about here is roughly five cents in the national average. Hard to believe you’d see a poll effect this dramatic because of something as meager as that. I think what we’re looking at here is a very noisy poll.

Not sure about this one, though:

    The WMUR Granite State Poll shows Obama leading Romney 51 to 42 percent [in New Hampshire]. That’s close to the 10-point lead Obama had over Romney in December…

    The results are a dramatic flip from October, when Romney led Obama 50 to 42 percent. Smith said that shows the Democratic base is mobilizing…

    The poll shows a mixed picture in terms of the president’s approval rating in the Granite State. Fifty percent said they approved of the job Obama is doing, while 47 percent said they disapproved. The gap has shrunk a bit since February, when 51 percent said they approved and 43 percent disapproved.

I don’t understand the “Democratic base is mobilizing” logic when it comes to polls. Their base would have answered this question the same way in October as they’re answering now. It’s more likely that Romney’s numbers have shrunk because, thanks to six months of a bitter GOP primary, indies know him better now than they did then and some don’t like what they see. That’s not a disaster — conservative Super PACs will begin the attack ad carpet-bombing campaign against O soon enough — but surely no one’s thrilled to see Mitt start the general election this far back in his own backyard. Nominating a “Massachusetts moderate” was supposed to help Republicans put northeastern states in play, states like New Hampshire and … er, realistically I guess that’s it.

I have a powerful eeyorish urge to go curl up in the fetal position so I’m going to go do that now. Here’s something to entertain yourself with, though — a new election model from WaPo that purports to predict the likelihood of an Obama victory or defeat based on two simple indicators, economic growth over the first three quarters of this year and his approval rating in June. In order to knock his chances of reelection below 50 percent, you need zero percent growth and a job approval of 45 percent. Possible, but not likely.

Open thread: Romney’s victory speech and Gingrich’s last stand; Update: Romney wins Delaware

1. Ed’s right, of course, that tonight is an anticlimax but there are still two good reasons to turn on cable news at 8 p.m. One is the Romney coronation. Excerpts from his prepared remarks:
2.     Four years ago Barack Obama dazzled us in front of Greek columns with sweeping promises of hope and change. But after we came down to earth, after the celebration and parades, what do we have to show for three and a half years of President Obama?
3.     Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more in your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Do you pay less at the pump?
4.     If the answer were “yes” to those questions, then President Obama would be running for re-election based on his achievements…and rightly so. But because he has failed, he will run a campaign of diversions, distractions, and distortions. That kind of campaign may have worked at another place and in a different time. But not here and not now. It’s still about the economy …and we’re not stupid.
5. Two is the fittingly surreal saga of whether Newt will signal an end to his campaign. Last night he told NBC, “I think we need to take a deep look at what we are doing,” and hinted that he might be done if he loses badly in Delaware, where he’s been campaigning lately. A source elaborated on that for NRO this morning, insisting that he’d have to finish at least a close second to Romney there to keep going. Then came the tamp-down from “campaign insiders,” who told Byron York that Newt won’t quit tonight no matter what happens.
6.     Team Gingrich sees three possible scenarios. The first scenario is that Gingrich wins Delaware. “That’s a signal to conservatives and Tea Partiers and grassroots activists that there still is a conservative they can send to Tampa,” says the Gingrich aide. “And it sends the message to Romney that it’s not time to turn to the general election.” No one knows whether the winning scenario is at all plausible; there has been no polling of Delaware, with its tiny Republican population and 17 delegates.
7.     Next comes the middle-road scenario in which Gingrich narrowly loses Delaware. “That’s where we do well enough that it demonstrates there’s a chink in Romney’s armor,” the aide says. When asked what “well enough” means, the aide answered, “Within a couple of points — a close loss.”
8.     The worst-case scenario is that Gingrich loses big in Delaware.
9. If they lose, says the source, they’ll “reassess” things but Gingrich will continue on to North Carolina to try to pick up another southern state. I really hope he pulls it off tonight in Delaware, just because I’m itching to watch a victory speech from bizarroland in which Newt boldly proclaims “game on” in the primary while literally everyone else in the GOP is pivoting to Obama. It’ll be an instant classic. A little taste from his chat with reporters this afternoon: “I think it’s a very substantial mistake for Governor Romney to be pretending these primaries aren’t occurring, and for him to be having ‘a general-election speech’ tonight in New Hampshire. He’s the front-runner, but he’s not the nominee, and I think it’s a little insulting to the people of these states.” C’mon, Dover tea partiers: If you made it to the polls for Christine O’Donnell, you can make it there to guarantee one last Gingrichian stemwinder. And even if not, I think Newt will probably find enough encouragement in PPP’s poll showing him within 10 of Romney in Texas to plow ahead anyway. My hunch is that he wants one more big win, one more right hook to Romney’s jaw, before succumbing.

• Here’s his new video message aimed squarely at Santorum voters in North Carolina. Speaking of which, how much longer until Team Sweater Vest climbs aboard Romney’s “Anybody But Obama” Express? According to CNN, a meeting’s likely to happen early next month to discuss the role “social conservatives, tea party activists and blue collar Republicans will play in the campaign and in the Romney administration.”

Socialism in, Sarkozy out in France?

Not quite yet, as there will be a run-off election on May 6, but it’s not looking good for current French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Story from France24, via Drudge:

    French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Socialist candidate François Hollande will face off in the second round of France’s presidential election after edging out the far right’s Marine Le Pen in Sunday’s first round of voting. Socialist presidential challenger François Hollande topped the first round of France’s presidential election on Sunday with 28.4 percent of votes, while incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy finished second with 25.5 percent, according to exit polls. Those figures set up a widely expected run-off between Sarkozy and the candidate of France’s main opposition party who led most voter intentions surveys before the first round.
    …
    French analysts rushed to speculate on how the whole of the election results would affect the outcome of the May 6 run-off, and on what many saw as the impending return of the Socialist Party to the Elysee Presidential palace and a Socialist-led parliament.

    The French left has spent the last 10 years as the country’s main opposition group, and had to digest three consecutive presidential defeats in 1995, 2002 and 2007. Former president François Mitterrand, who won back-to-back elections in 1981 and 1988, remains France’s only Socialist head of state since the end of World War Two.

French polling experts are predicting that the Socialist Hollande will ultimately win the run-off by a comfortable margin so the Sarkozy era is seemingly drawing to a close. Drudge is framing this as perhaps a sign of things to come for President Obama, as a foundering economy is apparently mostly to blame for Sarkozy’s electoral woes. But of course there is at least one key difference for the U.S. – socialism won’t be on the ballot come November. Or will it?

Socialism doesn’t carry the same stigma in other parts of the world as it does here, and conservatives in the U.S. are routinely mocked, even by President Obama himself, for referring either to him or his policies as ‘socialist’. When these accusations aren’t just laughed off completely (and they usually are), they are countered by the argument that even the most progressive Democrats are not calling for an end to free market capitalism, or government ownership of the means of production. But perhaps our liberal defenders of the President would like to explain why even an unabashed Socialist like François Hollande does not seem to be in favor of these either? In fact, in looking through Hollande’s campaign platform I wonder just how many of the policies he favors would be deemed too far left by our more ‘moderate’ progressives here in the U.S. Because I am seeing a lot of familiar themes. Hollande calls for a ‘public investment bank’, higher taxes and the closing of ‘tax loopholes’ for the wealthy, a surcharge on the profits of financial institutions, the right to marriage and adoption for gay couples, universal preschool, higher estate taxes, and more. But strangely, no calls for and end to capitalism or even the nationalization of any segment of the private sector. Hmm, maybe he’s really a closet progressive masquerading as a socialist?

Or could it just possibly be that progressives here in the U.S. are in favor of policies which would reasonably, and uncontroversially, be called ‘socialist’ just about anywhere else in the world? For me the second half of this clip from the Guardian, with Hollande staking out his position on the central debate of the French election, pretty much settles the question.

Hmm: Marco Rubio schedules “major speech” on foreign policy

Every move he makes from now until Romney chooses a VP will be seen through the lens of veepstakes maneuvering, no matter what Rubio’s true motivation might be. That said, it’s hard to believe the timing of this announcement is a coincidence. Today was his first big photo op with Romney on the stump, and speculation about Rob Portman has been much hotter lately than speculation about Rubio himself. This looks like his way of reinserting himself into the conversation and blunting the criticism that he’s not yet ready to be president in a pinch. Foreign policy is as core an Article II function as it gets, so here he comes to show that he’s qualified:

    Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida will deliver what his staff bills a “major speech on the future of U.S. foreign policy” this week, the senator’s office announced Monday.

    Rubio, considered to be a top vice presidential pick for likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney, is set to speak Wednesday at The Brookings Institution, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C.

    His remarks will focus on “whether U.S. global leadership is sustainable and even necessary in the 21st Century,” his staff said in a statement, without releasing further details.

I’m keen to hear what he says this time because thus far Rubio’s distinguished himself as being a hawk in the neoconservative mold. Watch the second clip below of him making the case for nonmilitary intervention in Syria to help the resistance free the country from Assad. He’s right in line with McCain, Lieberman, Graham and other prominent Senate hawks on that. Is Romney willing to double down on interventionism by choosing him as VP when even a majority of Republican voters lately say they want out of Afghanistan? In one sense, there’s little risk to doing so since Obama’s hands are tied on the issue; the guy who ignored the War Powers Act to join a coalition in Libya isn’t about to knock anyone else for being too interventionist. (So hawkish is Rubio that he passed on a chance to criticize Obama for that in his WSJ op-ed on Libya last year, even though it’s the worst case of overreach in Obama’s experiments with executive power.) The question is, after 10 years of war, are there more votes to be had among centrists and indies by taking a more cautious line? What does having an outspoken interventionist on the ticket do to help Romney?

Should be interesting — especially his thoughts on how much longer to stay in Afghanistan.

Japanese Government Stands Ready to Intervene to Keep Yen Weak

The Japanese government continues to make it clear that it is ready to intervene in the currency markets in order to keep the yen weak against other currencies. Once again, as concerns about the global economy surface, and as risk aversion sets in, the Japanese yen is gaining strength. This state of affairs is undesirable, and Japanese policymakers insist they are ready to intervene to weaken the yen if need be.

Indeed, over the weekend Japanese Finance Minister Jun Azumi made it clear that the government is ready to intervene if necessary in order to keep the yen weak. A weaker yen gives Japan an edge in global trading. The Japanese government continues to try and stimulate the economy with the help of a weaker yen. In the past, Japanese leaders have intervened to keep the yen weak, and it is likely that Azumi is not making idle threats.

Azumi also spoke about the need to keep the IMF’s funding capacity strong. He referenced the sovereign debt crisis in Europe during his speech at the policy steering committee at the IMF, and emphasized the importance of getting the crisis solved, rather than making more temporary measures.

At 13:08 GMT USD/JPY is down to 81.1110 from the open at 81.5165. EUR/JPY is down to 106.4805 from the open at 107.4850. GBP/JPY is down to 130.5560 from the open at 131.4350.

Euro Down on PMI, Concerns About French Elections

The euro was down today on concerns about the outcome of the presidential elections in France. The report that showed the manufacturing index falling to the lowest level in almost three years also had its negative impact on the currency.

Socialist Francois Hollande won the first round of elections, while incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy was the second. The anti-euro far-right National Front, led by Marine Le Pen, was third, showing that resentment against the eurozone is growing in France.

Markit Economics reported that the eurozone manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index slipped from 47.7 in March to 46.0 in April. Such low level was last seen in July 2009. Traders hoped that the index would rise to 48.1.

EUR/USD was down from 1.3182 to 1.3149 and EUR/JPY slid from 107.47 to 106.59 as of 10:22 GMT today.

US Dollar Pulls Back as Risk Appetite Returns

Risk appetite is making a comeback in the markets today, and that is sending the US dollar mostly lower. The dollar index is losing ground, and the greenback is lower against many of the majors, especially the European currencies. With better earnings news out of the United States, and with better news in the eurozone, Forex traders are ready for a little risk.

US dollar is pulling back as Forex traders look for better returns, mostly with European currencies and the Down Under currencies. Greenback is down against the euro and the pound right now as the better news results in a return to risk appetite. In the United States, earnings news is driving the markets. Solid earnings data and forecasts for the rest of 2012 have stocks gaining and risk appetite on the rise. This, in term, means a lower US dollar.

On top of that, the euro is getting help from the latest German Ifo data. The business sentiment survey from the Ifo shows that confidence is better than expected. Even though there are concerns about a eurozone recession, it appears that there are still those that are confident in once next. Also helping European currencies is the fact that the IMF has secured Russian funding.

At 14:21 GMT EUR/USD is up to 1.3208 from the open at 1.3137. GBP/USD is up to 1.6132 from the open at 1.6052. USD/JPY is up to 81.6705 from the open at 81.6050.

Aussie Mostly Soft as Week Draws to a Close

Australian dollar is mostly softer as the week draws to a close. Aussie has been weakened this week by risk aversion and concerns about what’s happening in the eurozone. Also, recently, the news out of China has been somewhat disappointing, and that has been weighing on the Aussie as well, since the Chinese economy is a major support to the Australian economy.

Aussie is higher against the US dollar today, gaining as a measure of risk appetite returns to the markets. US stocks are showing signs of recovery as earnings news spurs bulls forward. Additionally, the high demand for sovereign debt in the eurozone (even though yields are a bit high) is helping to allay some fears for the 17-nation currency region.

Australian dollar is finding some support against currencies like the dollar and the yen today. However, Aussie is lower against the euro and the pound. The mixed performance is to be somewhat expected, though, as European currencies make a comeback. Against the dollar and the yen, the Aussie’s superior interest rate and high return potential is helping.

At 15:30 GMT AUD/USD is higher at 1.0354, up from the open at 1.0344. EUR/AUD is up to 1.2726 from the open at 1.2705. GBP/AUD is up to 1.5538 from the open at 1.5520. AUD/JPY is higher at 84.64, up from the open at 84.43.

Study: Homophobes are pretty gay

Interesting, but follow the link and read the fine print and you’ll see that it’s really more a study of the effect of authoritarian parenting on sexuality than some sort of unified field theory about “homophobia.” In fact, it’s not fully clear to me from the news summary what would qualify as “homophobia” for purposes of the research. Sounds like they’re chiefly concerned with visceral dislike for gays, but I’m not sure; maybe, given the obvious political uses to which these results will be put, polite opposition to gay marriage also qualifies.

In which case, it’s a shame that we have a homophobic president, huh?

To explore participants’ explicit and implicit sexual attraction, the researchers measured the discrepancies between what people say about their sexual orientation and how they react during a split-second timed task. Students were shown words and pictures on a computer screen and asked to put these in “gay” or “straight” categories. Before each of the 50 trials, participants were subliminally primed with either the word “me” or “others” flashed on the screen for 35 milliseconds. They were then shown the words “gay,” “straight,” “homosexual,” and “heterosexual” as well as pictures of straight and gay couples, and the computer tracked precisely their response times. A faster association of “me” with “gay” and a slower association of “me” with “straight” indicated an implicit gay orientation.

A second experiment, in which subjects were free to browse same-sex or opposite-sex photos, provided an additional measure of implicit sexual attraction.

Through a series of questionnaires, participants also reported on the type of parenting they experienced growing up, from authoritarian to democratic. Students were asked to agree or disagree with statements like: “I felt controlled and pressured in certain ways,” and “I felt free to be who I am.” For gauging the level of homophobia in a household, subjects responded to items like: “It would be upsetting for my mom to find out she was alone with a lesbian” or “My dad avoids gay men whenever possible.”

Finally, the researcher measured participants’ level of homophobia — both overt, as expressed in questionnaires on social policy and beliefs, and implicit, as revealed in word-completion tasks. In the latter, students wrote down the first three words that came to mind, for example for the prompt “k i _ _.” The study tracked the increase in the amount of aggressive words elicited after subliminally priming subjects with the word “gay” for 35 milliseconds.

The theory is that kids with gay tendencies who grow up in very strict households may be so frightened of mom and dad’s disapproval that they compensate by developing a passionate aversion to gays themselves. Again: Interesting, but it’s a theory limited to a specific type of “homophobe,” not a universal explanation for why all critics of gays believe as they do. (As Live Science notes, “Ryan cautioned … that this link is only one source of anti-gay sentiments.”) Meanwhile, I’m curious why they didn’t use a more conclusive test of arousal, maybe involving, er, strategically placed sensors, to see which sex a given subject was most attracted to. Could be that that wasn’t possible with this test group simply because, if there were secretly gay members among them, they might have objected to a more invasive test for fear of being found out. But I don’t know. To the psychologists in our readership: How reliable are tests of “implicit” sexual attraction like this?

Exit question: Would the “authoritarian parent” explanation for vehement dislike of a particular group apply more broadly than just to sexuality? If, for instance, you’re raised in an authoritarian household that’s strictly religious, would a child who finds himself doubting his faith compensate with a powerful contempt for atheists/agnostics? If you don’t like that example, use a political scenario instead: In an authoritarian household that’s stridently liberal or conservative, would a kid who finds his sympathies trending the other way grow to hate that group to please his parents? (If so, does that mean some “true conservatives” have — gasp — latent liberal tendencies? And if so, doesn’t that mean the RINOs are the real conservatives? Good lord, suddenly I feel like the lost heir to Reagan.) I can think of reasons why sexuality might be unique — it forms earlier in most people than firm political/religious sympathies, it’s “felt” rather than thought through and therefore less amenable to being rationalized, and the social taboo against being gay is greater than the taboo against being liberal/conservative or atheist/agnostic (although maybe not dramatically so for nonbelievers in some communities). But I don’t know. This is why I ask.

Union argues that Indiana right-to-work law infringes on free, er, subsidized speech

Give the Union of Operating Engineers full marks for creativity — and perhaps an even higher grade for unintended transparency.  The Indiana union has filed suit to block the state’s new right-to-work law, claiming that making dues payments voluntary rather than a requirement for working in a union shop infringes on their First Amendment right to free speech.  How?  Why, it cuts their funding for free speech:

Indiana’s new right-to-work law should be struck down because it infringes upon unions’ free speech rights by depriving them of the dues that fund their political speech, attorneys for a union challenging the law contend, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s so-called Citizens United ruling that eased restrictions on corporate campaign spending.

Attorneys for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 argue in a court brief that Indiana’s new law, which allows workers to not pay union dues even if a union bargains on their behalf, interferes with the union’s free speech rights and “impinges on this fundamental right of union membership.” …

“In this case, the state of Indiana restricted a channel of speech-supporting finance,” the union brief maintains. “The Union legitimately utilizes dues money collected through the agency shop provisions in its collective bargaining agreements, in part, to finance political speech The Indiana Right to Work law prohibits agency shop agreements, and that prohibition restricts a channel through which speech-supporting finance might flow.”

Well, then the union infringed on my free speech by never advertising on Captain’s Quarters back in the day!  See how this works?  Free speech, according to this view, depends on funding.  What’s next?  A government mandate to buy a newspaper subscription?  After all, if you don’t get a dead tree delivered to your doorstep each day, you may be infringing on a newspaper’s rights to free speech and liberal editorial policies!  (Wait — maybe I shouldn’t give this administration any more ideas on mandates …)

Here’s an in interesting question to pose in response to this argument.  Even if one accepted for argument’s sake that the First Amendment guarantees an income stream to fund whatever speech one wants to make, what about the employee’s right to free association, which is implied in the First Amendment’s right to peaceable assembly, as noted in a number of Supreme Court cases?  Some employees may not want to associate with the union and participate in their speech; why should they be forced into an association with them?  It seems to me that this would be a stronger argument than the “free speech requires an income stream” argument.

We’ve noted this a number of times when people mistake private editorial choices for infringement of the right to free speech.  The right to free speech does not include the right to publication, or of revenue either resulting from or in service to that speech.  The act of refusing to join does not keep the union from expressing itself.  It just means that they may not have access to the best platforms from which to deliver that speech, which puts them in the same boat as everyone else.  Perhaps they should spend more time convincing people to support them voluntarily than in getting courts to forcibly extract cash from workers in order to pursue their own political purposes.

Obama’s job approval ticks up a point in March, while poll shows he leads “swing independents”

Long ago, when I competed in pageants (and I think I’ve referenced this before), a coach told me shrewdly, “You don’t necessarily have to impress the judges. You just have to make them like you.” It’s sad, but true — and as sad and as true when applied to politics as to pageants. (Electoral politics, after all, has a kind of pageantry all its own.) If a judge likes a candidate, he’ll overlook a halting response to an interview question, a slight trip on the stage, an imperfectly fitted dress. Similarly, if voters like a politician, they’ll overlook unimpressive speeches, poor policies, blatant politicization of even the least political elements of our culture. The reverse is also true. If a judge dislikes a candidate, he won’t be impressed with clean execution in competition. If anything, a flawless performance will make him like her less, perceive her as “too perfect” and somehow not “all-American.” If voters dislike a politician, they won’t hand him an election on the basis of an impressive record and impeccable campaign trail performance.

The likability factor just might be Barack Obama’s trump card. Today offers two signs that Obama is as likable as ever.

Firstly, Obama’s approval rating ticked up a point in March, according to Gallup.

President Obama’s average monthly job approval rating has been inching up since last fall, rising from 41% in October to 45% in January, and reaching 46% in March. As his approval rating has expanded, and despite the variety of issues that have emerged at different times during his presidency, most of the demographic patterns of support for Obama seen at the outset of his presidency remain fixed. Groups that are above average in support for the president have stayed at roughly the same level above his overall approval rating from month to month, and those below average have also stayed roughly the same distance below his overall rating.

Secondly, a new poll by Global Strategy Group for Third Way shows that swing independents in 12 key states consider themselves closer ideologically to Mitt Romney than Obama — but still like Obama better. Politico reports:

Obama won 57 percent of this group in 2008. In this poll, which took place in mid-March, he led Romney 44 percent to 38 percent.

Yet when asked to assign a number on a scale of one to nine (one being liberal, nine being conservative and five being moderate), the swing independents put themselves at an average of 5.2 — slightly right of center — ranking Romney at 6.1 and Obama at 3.9.

“There’s definitely some good news for Obama. It’s not shocking to any of us that he’s very likable … Romney’s ideology is much closer to where they see themselves, but the likability factor isn’t there for him,” said Lanae Erickson, the deputy director of Third Way’s social policy and politics program, who has written a 12-page memo on the results.

It’s a bit of a mystery as to why Barack Obama appeals so strongly to so many voters on a personal level. He’s a Harvard-educated, Chicago-honed, aloof politician. He’s not so different in those respects than the Harvard-educated, Boston-honed, aloof Mitt Romney.

It’s hard to gauge how politicians acquire fixed descriptors. The “likable” Obama and the “distant” Mitt Romney are caricatures of both men. Obama is often condescending and insulting, Romney often self-deprecating and awkwardly endearing. The key, I think, is for conservatives and Republicans to stop disparaging Mitt Romney as unable to connect with the average American. He’s far above average in every respect, it’s true — but he has a respect for hardworking Americans that Obama often seems to lack and he has far more leadership experience in both the private and public sector than Barack Obama did when he became president. At this point, we have to be willing to say it: We like Mitt Romney