Former Bush administration officials are kind of challenging the viewpoint espoused by Karl Rove that President Bush is a voracious reader. Former Colin Powell Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson, who has become a strong critic of the administration, provides an interesting counterpoint to Rove:
"It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin-like President - because, let's face it, that's what he was - was going to be protected by this national security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire," said Wilkerson.[...]
Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism adviser, said then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Steve Hadley, told him, "Don't give the President a lot of long memos. He's not a big reader."
Said an astounded Clarke: "Well, s---, I mean, the President of the United States is not a big reader?"
Ouch.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Silence is Golden
Perhaps the sweetest silence we have had in some time comes in the form of that which accompanied the apparent birth of the newest addition to the family of the Alaska governor. The governor's teenage daughter had a son over the weekend. The best of all of the this? The media completely ignored it. This is an absolutely, positively tremendous development We can only hope that this is sign that our nation's pitiful media is growing up.
Hopefully we will hear the Alaska governor's name only two more times in my lifetime: when she announces a run for President in 2012, and when she drops out sometime after she is inevitably trounched, either in the primary or in the general. I would not bet on it, but we can hope, no?
Hopefully we will hear the Alaska governor's name only two more times in my lifetime: when she announces a run for President in 2012, and when she drops out sometime after she is inevitably trounched, either in the primary or in the general. I would not bet on it, but we can hope, no?
Inauguration Warning
For anyone planning on going to the January 20 inauguration ceremony, including those with actual tickets, I strongly recommend you read this short piece on the expected conditions of the event.
Needless to say, you can expect endless delays, interminable waits, potential bitter cold and icy rain, millions of people cramped all together, and other fun things in order to see the short ceremony. As I have been telling interested friends: do yourself a favor and watch it on television. It won't be nearly as fun or fascinating as you might think.
Needless to say, you can expect endless delays, interminable waits, potential bitter cold and icy rain, millions of people cramped all together, and other fun things in order to see the short ceremony. As I have been telling interested friends: do yourself a favor and watch it on television. It won't be nearly as fun or fascinating as you might think.
The Sad Demise of Michael Barone
As a devout political junkie, I view Michael Barone as one of the very best in the business. He is the longtime editor/author/guru behind the incomparable Almanac of American Politics, the only book which has a permanent spot beside my bed. For some time I have believed that Barone is one of the very sharpest minds covering American politics. While Barone is an avowed conservative (and likely a Republican), this has never really bothered me because I have long found his work so insightful.
It is for this reason, that I find the current direction of much of his work so dispiriting. Perhaps he is still bitter over the results of the November elections, but for the last few months, Barone's columns and blog posts have been filled with nasty, snide comments and absurd premises. Seeing his two most recent posts -- comparing President Bush to Harry Truman and calling on President Bush to pardon Scooter Libby -- really makes me sad. Sure, I may not agree with these positions on the political merits, but it goes beyond simple politics: these contentions are plainly wrong, not to mention silly. But worse is that it seems as though Barone is slowly retreating from being a brilliant political observer into being a petty bomb-thrower.
Perhaps I have just not been reading Barone for long enough and he has always been like this more or less, but I don't think that's the case. It's a pretty sad turn of events. You can do better than that, Michael!
It is for this reason, that I find the current direction of much of his work so dispiriting. Perhaps he is still bitter over the results of the November elections, but for the last few months, Barone's columns and blog posts have been filled with nasty, snide comments and absurd premises. Seeing his two most recent posts -- comparing President Bush to Harry Truman and calling on President Bush to pardon Scooter Libby -- really makes me sad. Sure, I may not agree with these positions on the political merits, but it goes beyond simple politics: these contentions are plainly wrong, not to mention silly. But worse is that it seems as though Barone is slowly retreating from being a brilliant political observer into being a petty bomb-thrower.
Perhaps I have just not been reading Barone for long enough and he has always been like this more or less, but I don't think that's the case. It's a pretty sad turn of events. You can do better than that, Michael!
Rudderless
The Hill has a good article today which sheds considerable light on the problems facing the national Republican Party as we enter 2009. In discussing the Party's upcoming election for the new Republican National Committee, the piece implicitly notes that right now, and perhaps even after a chair is selected, the Party lacks a single leader to guide Republicans going forward.
This is one of the many problems that a political party encounters when it does not control the White House. Through good and bad, at the least the President is the leader of his Party, and his agenda, initiatives and personality all move the party along. The party that is out of power may have the luxary of not being saddled with an unpopular chief executive -- who is also the face of the entire government to the voting public -- as was the case with Democrats since 2005, but it also lacks a true leader to guide its movements.
This is precisely where the GOP finds itself right now: looking for a leader to guide its resistence to a Democratic President and a strongly Democratic Congress. It is entirely unclear if men like Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Jeb Henserling, and whoever is the next RNC chair have it in them to do the job any more effectively than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did during the Dems' recent wilderness years. While it remains to be seen, I am guessing that the GOP has a hard time in this department at least through the first half of 2009, especially if the economy begins to improve in any substantive and perceptible fashion,
This is one of the many problems that a political party encounters when it does not control the White House. Through good and bad, at the least the President is the leader of his Party, and his agenda, initiatives and personality all move the party along. The party that is out of power may have the luxary of not being saddled with an unpopular chief executive -- who is also the face of the entire government to the voting public -- as was the case with Democrats since 2005, but it also lacks a true leader to guide its movements.
This is precisely where the GOP finds itself right now: looking for a leader to guide its resistence to a Democratic President and a strongly Democratic Congress. It is entirely unclear if men like Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Jeb Henserling, and whoever is the next RNC chair have it in them to do the job any more effectively than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did during the Dems' recent wilderness years. While it remains to be seen, I am guessing that the GOP has a hard time in this department at least through the first half of 2009, especially if the economy begins to improve in any substantive and perceptible fashion,
Lie of the Day
Call me a hopeless partisan (I'm not), but I just cannot believe Karl Rove's new Wall Street Journal column which claims that President Bush has read hundreds of books over the course of his presidency. No. Way.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Oh the Irony!
Am I the only one who sees the delicious irony in a piece from today's New York Times which describes New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo as "fuming" and being "driv[en] crazy" by Caroline Kennedy's ascendence as the frontrunner for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat? It was certainly nowhere to be found in the article.
I hate to be judgmental -- hey, it's what I do -- but Andrew Cuomo is one of the most unlikeable politicians I've ever seen, and I know all about loser politicians given the governor of my homestate New Jersey. And really, to be honest, Cuomohas a face I just don't trust. But most important, if his last name were not Cuomo, the guy might be shining shoes in the Port Authority Bus Terminal on Eighth Avenue. However, unfair and reprehensible Kennedy's behavior is in going after a position she has no business chasing, Cuomo is the last person who should be bitching about it.
I don't know what's better: Lisa Murkowski being upset about being potentially primary challenged by Sarah Palin, or Andrew Cuomo fuming about how unfair Caroline Kennedy's actions are. Man, politicians are a different breed. The basic rules of hypocrisy just elude them.
I hate to be judgmental -- hey, it's what I do -- but Andrew Cuomo is one of the most unlikeable politicians I've ever seen, and I know all about loser politicians given the governor of my homestate New Jersey. And really, to be honest, Cuomohas a face I just don't trust. But most important, if his last name were not Cuomo, the guy might be shining shoes in the Port Authority Bus Terminal on Eighth Avenue. However, unfair and reprehensible Kennedy's behavior is in going after a position she has no business chasing, Cuomo is the last person who should be bitching about it.
I don't know what's better: Lisa Murkowski being upset about being potentially primary challenged by Sarah Palin, or Andrew Cuomo fuming about how unfair Caroline Kennedy's actions are. Man, politicians are a different breed. The basic rules of hypocrisy just elude them.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
How Low Can They Go?
I had a brief, but nonetheless interesting dinner conversation this evening. A couple of friends and I were reflecting on the travails of Rod Blagojevich, who amazingly is still sitting in the governor's office in Illinois, wielding authority, when I wondered aloud how in the heck he was able to remain in power in the aftermath of being caught on tape crudely discussing how to personally profit from carrying out his duties. Then it kind of hit me: Blagojevich is not alone, as there have been scores of congressman and others who, despite being caught in scandals or doing bad behavior, not only remained in office, but actually ran again anyway. The list is long, and crosses party lines. I am sure I will miss many people, but I have to go to sleep sometime.
* Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA, 04). He fell under an ethical cloud as part of a criminal investigation, and ran again anyway in 2006, winning 49-46 in a very Republican district. Following an FBI raid, he announced he would not run again in 2008, but stayed in Congress until the end of his term.
* Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). After his name fell into a broad federal investigation, his son's office was raided by the feds, and then his own house was raided, he plowed ahead with plans to run for re-election. Oh, and then he was indicted by a federal grand jury. But he kept running, and did not resign from the Senate. In the end, he lost by less than one percent last month, ending a 40-year Senate career.
* Rep. Bill Jefferson (D-LA, 02). Stayed in Congress after the FBI found tens of thousands of dollars in cash in his freezer. He did not even give up a plum committee assignment (it was stripped by Democratic leadership), and was re-elected in 2006. After his own office was raided and he was indicted for corruption, he remained in office. Shockingly, he was turned out of office a few weeks ago, a huge relief to Democrats.
* Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL, 24). He became part of the broad Abramoff scandal and investigation, and went on an infamous golf trip to Scotland with the disgraced lobbyist. The funniest part is that he did not really acknowledge his ties to Abramoff until this year when he faced a tough campaign, even cutting an ad issuing a baloney apology. He was crushed.
* Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH, 18). Ney remained in Congress following his indictment, and did not actually resign until he was convicted.
* Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA, 50). See Ney. Cunningham disgraced his office and his institution, but remained resolutely in office until he was convicted of breath-taking corruption.
* Rep. Don Young (R-AK, AL). Young has been the subject of a federal probe for over a year, spending over $1 million of his campaign funds on his defense lawyers. Like Stevens, Young plowed ahead with his campaign this year, narrowly winning his primary and general election. He remains in office, unbowed.
I realize I could go on and on. My whole point is simply that it seems like there is no scandal too great to shame a congressman into resigning. I know that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but the sheer audacity of Members today should stun even hardened cynics. Really, we have reached a point in our political culture where any crime short of the Earl Long/Edwin Edwards test -- being found in bed with a dead girl or live boy -- will not force a politician into immediately giving up power (which kind of explains who Mark Foley and Eliot Spitzer promptly resigned when their shame was revealed to the world).
Kind of amazing when you think about it. There is no lowest point for shameless politicians who will keep showing up for work. How Vito Fossella came in every day over the last six months, and looked his staff and constituents in the eye each morning is beyond me. Blago must be made of the same "right stuff".
And guess what? Vito is already plotting a comeback. You can't make this stuff up.
* Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA, 04). He fell under an ethical cloud as part of a criminal investigation, and ran again anyway in 2006, winning 49-46 in a very Republican district. Following an FBI raid, he announced he would not run again in 2008, but stayed in Congress until the end of his term.
* Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). After his name fell into a broad federal investigation, his son's office was raided by the feds, and then his own house was raided, he plowed ahead with plans to run for re-election. Oh, and then he was indicted by a federal grand jury. But he kept running, and did not resign from the Senate. In the end, he lost by less than one percent last month, ending a 40-year Senate career.
* Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY, 13). This might be the most comic one of all. Fossella was stopped for DUI in Virginia, and soon thereafter it was exposed that he was going to see his girlfriend and the mother of his daughter. This mattered since Vito touted himself as a "family values" politician who had a loving family back home in Staten Island. While Fossella ultimately decided not to run again (though, he actually considered seriously running again!), stopping a promising career, he stayed in office, and kept showing up every day.
* Rep. Bill Jefferson (D-LA, 02). Stayed in Congress after the FBI found tens of thousands of dollars in cash in his freezer. He did not even give up a plum committee assignment (it was stripped by Democratic leadership), and was re-elected in 2006. After his own office was raided and he was indicted for corruption, he remained in office. Shockingly, he was turned out of office a few weeks ago, a huge relief to Democrats.
* Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL, 24). He became part of the broad Abramoff scandal and investigation, and went on an infamous golf trip to Scotland with the disgraced lobbyist. The funniest part is that he did not really acknowledge his ties to Abramoff until this year when he faced a tough campaign, even cutting an ad issuing a baloney apology. He was crushed.
* Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH, 18). Ney remained in Congress following his indictment, and did not actually resign until he was convicted.
* Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA, 50). See Ney. Cunningham disgraced his office and his institution, but remained resolutely in office until he was convicted of breath-taking corruption.
* Rep. Don Young (R-AK, AL). Young has been the subject of a federal probe for over a year, spending over $1 million of his campaign funds on his defense lawyers. Like Stevens, Young plowed ahead with his campaign this year, narrowly winning his primary and general election. He remains in office, unbowed.
I realize I could go on and on. My whole point is simply that it seems like there is no scandal too great to shame a congressman into resigning. I know that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but the sheer audacity of Members today should stun even hardened cynics. Really, we have reached a point in our political culture where any crime short of the Earl Long/Edwin Edwards test -- being found in bed with a dead girl or live boy -- will not force a politician into immediately giving up power (which kind of explains who Mark Foley and Eliot Spitzer promptly resigned when their shame was revealed to the world).
Kind of amazing when you think about it. There is no lowest point for shameless politicians who will keep showing up for work. How Vito Fossella came in every day over the last six months, and looked his staff and constituents in the eye each morning is beyond me. Blago must be made of the same "right stuff".
And guess what? Vito is already plotting a comeback. You can't make this stuff up.
Another Listening Tour?!?!
Back in the summer of 1999, when I was a young pup interning down in Washington, D.C., I distinctly remember Hillary Clinton's utterly ridiculous and insulting "listening tour" of New York. At the time, longtime Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was retiring, and at the urging of several powerful Democrats, the First Lady decided to run for the seat. The only problem? She did not live in New York, and had never resided in the state for any extended period of time. To finesse this, Clinton and her people concocted a listening tour of the Empire State, whereby she would go across the state just talking with and listening to New Yorkers to "decide" what to do.
Naturally, this was all a pretext, as her run was a done deal, and her tour was a way to ease her into the contest without ruffling too many feathers and in order to get around the biting allegations that she was a carpetbagger coming from all corners across New York and the nation.
I have to admit that at the time I was disgusted with the whole thing. Never a fan of Hillary, I thought it ridiculous that she would move into the state and then be able to be its United States Senator (ah, how naive I was when I was 19!). I found her tour a joke and an embarrassment, an insult to any rational person's intellect.
A big fan of Rudy Giuliani back then (I have always respected the pre-9/11 Rudy; anyone who claims he did not help clean up New York City does not know what they're talking about, but that being said, I have always hated post-9/11 Rudy which is a farce and a bunch of crap), I even considered backing him, and wearing one of those "Hillary No" buttons that the College Republicans proudly brandished. As he was considering a Senate run too, Rudy went on his own listening tour, but of Hillary's homestate of Arkansas! I still vividly remember the frontpage of the New York Daily News, showing Rudy with a hilarious goofy grin and dark Yankees jacket with the headline "Arkansas Here I Come"; in fact, I have it saved in our attic back home.
In the end, I did vote for Hillary, not so much because I loved her at the time, but because Rudy dropped out because of his prostate cancer diagnosis (though, to be fair, I think he knew he was going to get creamed by Hillary), and I was never backing the awful Rick Lazio and child-like Rick Lazio. Still, despite my vote for her, I never warmed to her listening tour, and to this day I think it was absolute nonsense.
I bring up all these old stories of my youth because today I am reading that Caroline Kennedy is now going on her own listening tour of upstate New York as she prepares for her inevitable appointment to Hillary's soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat. While I did not see this tour coming, I probably should have. And I hate it just the same.
Who in God's name would buy this garbage? Caroline Kennedy probably has not been upstate in her life. If I had a dollar for every trip she's taken to Buffalo, Utica, Oswego, and Watertown, I might have 16 cents. This trip is every bit as insulting as Hillary's less than 10 years ago. I realize that this is her way of easing into a job she probably is not the most qualified for just as it was for Hillary back in 1999, but that does not make it any less silly. The entire spectacle just makes me queasy, to be quite honest. Sure, I think that the appointment makes a great deal of sense for Democrats on a national/public relations scale, but I am more and more irritated by the whole thing as it directly conflicts with my desire for some shred of fairness in the political process.
A "listening tour"?! Who is she kidding? Well, when she is on the Senate floor in a few months, I guess it won't really matter much.
Naturally, this was all a pretext, as her run was a done deal, and her tour was a way to ease her into the contest without ruffling too many feathers and in order to get around the biting allegations that she was a carpetbagger coming from all corners across New York and the nation.
I have to admit that at the time I was disgusted with the whole thing. Never a fan of Hillary, I thought it ridiculous that she would move into the state and then be able to be its United States Senator (ah, how naive I was when I was 19!). I found her tour a joke and an embarrassment, an insult to any rational person's intellect.
A big fan of Rudy Giuliani back then (I have always respected the pre-9/11 Rudy; anyone who claims he did not help clean up New York City does not know what they're talking about, but that being said, I have always hated post-9/11 Rudy which is a farce and a bunch of crap), I even considered backing him, and wearing one of those "Hillary No" buttons that the College Republicans proudly brandished. As he was considering a Senate run too, Rudy went on his own listening tour, but of Hillary's homestate of Arkansas! I still vividly remember the frontpage of the New York Daily News, showing Rudy with a hilarious goofy grin and dark Yankees jacket with the headline "Arkansas Here I Come"; in fact, I have it saved in our attic back home.
In the end, I did vote for Hillary, not so much because I loved her at the time, but because Rudy dropped out because of his prostate cancer diagnosis (though, to be fair, I think he knew he was going to get creamed by Hillary), and I was never backing the awful Rick Lazio and child-like Rick Lazio. Still, despite my vote for her, I never warmed to her listening tour, and to this day I think it was absolute nonsense.
I bring up all these old stories of my youth because today I am reading that Caroline Kennedy is now going on her own listening tour of upstate New York as she prepares for her inevitable appointment to Hillary's soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat. While I did not see this tour coming, I probably should have. And I hate it just the same.
Who in God's name would buy this garbage? Caroline Kennedy probably has not been upstate in her life. If I had a dollar for every trip she's taken to Buffalo, Utica, Oswego, and Watertown, I might have 16 cents. This trip is every bit as insulting as Hillary's less than 10 years ago. I realize that this is her way of easing into a job she probably is not the most qualified for just as it was for Hillary back in 1999, but that does not make it any less silly. The entire spectacle just makes me queasy, to be quite honest. Sure, I think that the appointment makes a great deal of sense for Democrats on a national/public relations scale, but I am more and more irritated by the whole thing as it directly conflicts with my desire for some shred of fairness in the political process.
A "listening tour"?! Who is she kidding? Well, when she is on the Senate floor in a few months, I guess it won't really matter much.
New Jersey 2009: GOP Shouldn't Get Its Hopes Up
Next year, New Jersey will be one of only two states (the other is Virginia) to hold a governor's contest. The Garden State will also be host to score of state legislative races with varying degrees of importance (read: ability to potentially flip). As this article in the Philadelphia Inquirer details, state Republicans are optimistic and really, chomping at the bit to take out several Democratic legislators, and perhaps even Governor Jon Corzine himself.
While I can understand their exuberance, state GOPers should not get their hopes up.
Being a proud New Jerseyean, I will be the first to admit that we still enjoy the most corrupt political culture in America (no Illinois, you haven't taken that title from us yet: our politicians are just a bit better at not getting caught). Furthermore, I can acknowledge that Democrats have done a lousy job running the state, particularly Corzine, a man I find impossible to like or respect, and whose leadership is grossly lacking in many, many areas.
All of that being said, I would not expect many changes in the state's political make-up. First, as the article notes, the Assembly is intractably in Democratic hands, and any gains made by the GOP will be miniscule at best. The Republicans may even lose more seats. The State Senate, at 23-17, is much closer, but it does not appear, at least at this moment, that there are any great pick-up opportunities for the minority. While Trenton is loathed by just about all New Jerseyeans -- I think three, if not four Democratic state senators were indicted in federal court in the last year or so with two of them already being convicted -- achieving much turnover is difficult given the state's Democratic climate, the more resources Democrats will have at their disposal, and the districts truly in play.
The big prize is of course the governor's race. It may be hard to believe, but the New Jersey governorship is a very big deal. It is a big deal because the governor is likely the most powerful state executive in the nation, with control over just about every aspect of the state's operations. Republicans have been very bullish about their chances for some time. This optimism is predicated on two factors: first, Corzine's habitually low approval ratings; and second, a hope that outgoing United States Attorney Chris Christie, should he decide to run, would topple Corzine.
There is no doubt that Corzine is not exactly a beloved figure in New Jersey. Taxes remain high, corruption persists, and Jerseyeans will always have some lingering resentment for a charismatic-less politician who bought first a Senate seat, and then the governor's mansion five years later when he got bored of Washington and hungered for a better launching pad from which to one day run for President (that last one is a real laugh). However, none of this will likely cost Corzine his job.
As polls go, they mean nothing, especially this early. Fellow armchair political analysts not unlike this author like to attribute New Jersey's always-strange political polling -- where incumbents rarely break 50% and are often close with weak challengers -- to the residents' distrust of pollsters and polling. I disagree. Really, the issue is that while Jersey remains staunchly Democratic, its people rarely much like the sitting politicians, and this is reflected in initial polling.
That being said, it is one thing for Jerseyeans to express reservations about an incumbent Dem in January, and it is quite another for them to actually pull the lever for a Republican in the booth. There must be a strong reason for voters to toss out a statewide Democrat, something along the lines of former Governor Jim Florio's disasterious tax raise in the early 1990s which led to his defeat (though by only one point to Christie Whitman: a fact few people like to acknowledge) and the ouster of many Democrats across the state. At the present time, despite Corzine's bad personal ratings and his own weak record, I see no such seminal event which will back up his current weak numbers come November 2009.
In terms of Christie, I am unable to see him turning out to being much of anything. There's no doubt he has been a very successful U.S. Attorney, as his office helped convicted dozens and dozens of corrupt politicians across the state. For this he has gotten many accolades, nearly all of them deserving. However, in a state like New Jersey where there is no central media market, most people have no idea who the heck he is. Against someone like Corzine -- who has spent well in excess of $100 million to win his Senate seat in 2000 and the governorship in 2005, and will spend tens of millions in next year's campaign -- that is a bad combination for ultimate success. Republicans may be right that Christie is the best possible opponent for Corzine, but that still might not be good enough in a state like New Jersey. It is just too blue. And this is coming from a guy who is not yet sure he is voting for Corzine!
While I can understand their exuberance, state GOPers should not get their hopes up.
Being a proud New Jerseyean, I will be the first to admit that we still enjoy the most corrupt political culture in America (no Illinois, you haven't taken that title from us yet: our politicians are just a bit better at not getting caught). Furthermore, I can acknowledge that Democrats have done a lousy job running the state, particularly Corzine, a man I find impossible to like or respect, and whose leadership is grossly lacking in many, many areas.
All of that being said, I would not expect many changes in the state's political make-up. First, as the article notes, the Assembly is intractably in Democratic hands, and any gains made by the GOP will be miniscule at best. The Republicans may even lose more seats. The State Senate, at 23-17, is much closer, but it does not appear, at least at this moment, that there are any great pick-up opportunities for the minority. While Trenton is loathed by just about all New Jerseyeans -- I think three, if not four Democratic state senators were indicted in federal court in the last year or so with two of them already being convicted -- achieving much turnover is difficult given the state's Democratic climate, the more resources Democrats will have at their disposal, and the districts truly in play.
The big prize is of course the governor's race. It may be hard to believe, but the New Jersey governorship is a very big deal. It is a big deal because the governor is likely the most powerful state executive in the nation, with control over just about every aspect of the state's operations. Republicans have been very bullish about their chances for some time. This optimism is predicated on two factors: first, Corzine's habitually low approval ratings; and second, a hope that outgoing United States Attorney Chris Christie, should he decide to run, would topple Corzine.
There is no doubt that Corzine is not exactly a beloved figure in New Jersey. Taxes remain high, corruption persists, and Jerseyeans will always have some lingering resentment for a charismatic-less politician who bought first a Senate seat, and then the governor's mansion five years later when he got bored of Washington and hungered for a better launching pad from which to one day run for President (that last one is a real laugh). However, none of this will likely cost Corzine his job.
As polls go, they mean nothing, especially this early. Fellow armchair political analysts not unlike this author like to attribute New Jersey's always-strange political polling -- where incumbents rarely break 50% and are often close with weak challengers -- to the residents' distrust of pollsters and polling. I disagree. Really, the issue is that while Jersey remains staunchly Democratic, its people rarely much like the sitting politicians, and this is reflected in initial polling.
That being said, it is one thing for Jerseyeans to express reservations about an incumbent Dem in January, and it is quite another for them to actually pull the lever for a Republican in the booth. There must be a strong reason for voters to toss out a statewide Democrat, something along the lines of former Governor Jim Florio's disasterious tax raise in the early 1990s which led to his defeat (though by only one point to Christie Whitman: a fact few people like to acknowledge) and the ouster of many Democrats across the state. At the present time, despite Corzine's bad personal ratings and his own weak record, I see no such seminal event which will back up his current weak numbers come November 2009.
In terms of Christie, I am unable to see him turning out to being much of anything. There's no doubt he has been a very successful U.S. Attorney, as his office helped convicted dozens and dozens of corrupt politicians across the state. For this he has gotten many accolades, nearly all of them deserving. However, in a state like New Jersey where there is no central media market, most people have no idea who the heck he is. Against someone like Corzine -- who has spent well in excess of $100 million to win his Senate seat in 2000 and the governorship in 2005, and will spend tens of millions in next year's campaign -- that is a bad combination for ultimate success. Republicans may be right that Christie is the best possible opponent for Corzine, but that still might not be good enough in a state like New Jersey. It is just too blue. And this is coming from a guy who is not yet sure he is voting for Corzine!
Blago Press Conference?
In the words of perhaps my least favorite athlete (also of my least favorite team): Get your popcorn ready! A Rod Blagojevich press conference has the potential to be the funniest and most fascinating political exercise we may all see in a long while. Let's hope he takes questions too (though I won't hold my breath for that one)!
Some More Colorado Party ID Returns
The Denver Post has an article today highlighting the election returns and party breakdown. For those interested parties who may have missed it, we took some time to dissect exit poll data for Colorado in several posts (along with the data for several other swing states). The article goes over some of the same ground, but I thought it worthwhile to go over some it again to make some new points.
According to new numbers from the Colorado secretary of state's office, Republicans in November voted in greater numbers than Democrats and — even more surprising — also turned out in higher percentages when compared with the parties' numbers of registered voters. In a state at the heart of the Democrats' Western strategy, Republicans still accounted for the largest voting bloc and yet lost in all of the highest-profile races.
That brain-twister, say political pundits, underscores the challenges both parties face moving toward what are expected to be equally contentious 2010 races for governor and U.S. Senate in a state that is now of decidedly mixed political leanings.
"Looking at 2010, you would at least say at this point there is a slight edge for the Democrats," said pollster Floyd Ciruli. "But it is very slight. This is now truly a competitive state."
I will be the first to concur that Colorado is not yet quite a blue state. It is for this reason that I think Democrats should be concerned about losing Ken Salazar's soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat. By no means should Democrats make any broad assumptions about Colorado being a reliable nine electoral votes in the blue column.
All of that being said, I think that the pollster Mr. Ciruli badly understates what these numbers say. Yes, the exit polls show that self-identified Republicans made up 31% of election voters, versus 30% being Democrats. However, that split was 38-29 in favor of the GOP just four years. That is an aggrevate movement of eight points, no small potatoes. Looking more closely at the data, we see that whereas George Bush won GOPers by 93-6 in 2004, McCain carried this group by 87-13, a movement of 13 points towards the blue team. This is a bit more evidence that the very slight 31-30 advantage highlighted in the article really does not mean much.
Statewide, Republicans still outpace Democrats in terms of total registered voters — though the numbers are closing and Democrats now count more active voters among their ranks than Republicans.
Independents, who make up the largest group of registered voters, trailed Republicans and Democrats in turnout this year. About 100,000 fewer unaffiliated voters cast ballots than did Republicans or Democrats. About 67 percent of registered independents voted in the election.
The key to the election, though, was how those unaffiliated people voted, said David Flaherty, chief executive of voter tracking firm Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies, which works with Republican candidates.
"The Republican get-out-the-vote effort executed very well," Flaherty said. "But at the end of the day, doing all those things right, it's about appealing to unaffiliated voters."
Yes and no. Sure, independents held a big role in the outcome in Colorado (as in just about every other state), but it is was only one piece of the electoral puzzle. In 2004, self-identified indies made up 33% of all votes, and they broke for Kerry 52-45. This year, they went up to 39%, and broke to Obama by a bit better 55-44 split, an aggregate movement of +3 points (which does mean more given the 6% turnout increase). In other words, there was key improvement here, but I am not sure I would say it was the reason Obama carried Colorado. When you win a state by 54-45, there are multiple reasons for it. I won't get into my analysis of Colorado again, needless to say there is oodles of data and armchair conclusions in my posts linked above.
To be sure, the gap in turnout between Republicans and Democrats this year was small, nowhere near the wide advantage Republicans once held, Ciruli said. About 15,600 more Republicans voted in the election than Democrats, out of a record 2.4 million total voters statewide. In terms of turnout, slightly more than 80 percent of all registered Republicans voted this year, compared with about 79 percent of registered Democrats.[...]
But state Republican Party chairman Dick Wadhams sees a silver lining in his party's 2008 storm clouds: The GOP turnout machine's still got it.
"This is probably the best effort we ever had in Colorado," Wadhams said. "We got the Republican vote out."
I know what spin is. It is used by both parties, especially after they have suffered a bad loss. Dick Wadhams, who spearheaded Bob Schaffer's Senate campaign this year, had a rough go of it, as Schaffer was crushed by Mark Udall, the man Wadham all-but-renamed "Boulder Liberal" in an attempt to tarnish him. But to say that he is satisfied with his party's turnout is a lot to take. The Colorado GOP is in bad shape today, and the exit data provides little comfort.
But nothing succeeds like success, and with that in mind the Colorado GOP is going to have two opportunities to make a comeback in 2010 with the Senate and governor's contests. Given that Bill Ritter was elected by something like 17 points in 2006, he is likely safe for re-election. But if Wadhams can keep Tom Tancredo out and recruit former Governor Bill Owens to run for Senate, he might be able to get a key victory under his belt. Owens could definitely win, but any loss would set the party back even further.
In the last few years, Democrats have taken over the state legislature, flipped a 5-2 deficit in the congressional delegation to a current 5-2 advantage, and have won both Senate seats and the governor's mansion, two decisively. Colorado is not yet New Jersey in terms of political make-up and Democratic reliability, but anyone claiming that the state is now at this moment basically even would be fooling himself.
According to new numbers from the Colorado secretary of state's office, Republicans in November voted in greater numbers than Democrats and — even more surprising — also turned out in higher percentages when compared with the parties' numbers of registered voters. In a state at the heart of the Democrats' Western strategy, Republicans still accounted for the largest voting bloc and yet lost in all of the highest-profile races.
That brain-twister, say political pundits, underscores the challenges both parties face moving toward what are expected to be equally contentious 2010 races for governor and U.S. Senate in a state that is now of decidedly mixed political leanings.
"Looking at 2010, you would at least say at this point there is a slight edge for the Democrats," said pollster Floyd Ciruli. "But it is very slight. This is now truly a competitive state."
I will be the first to concur that Colorado is not yet quite a blue state. It is for this reason that I think Democrats should be concerned about losing Ken Salazar's soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat. By no means should Democrats make any broad assumptions about Colorado being a reliable nine electoral votes in the blue column.
All of that being said, I think that the pollster Mr. Ciruli badly understates what these numbers say. Yes, the exit polls show that self-identified Republicans made up 31% of election voters, versus 30% being Democrats. However, that split was 38-29 in favor of the GOP just four years. That is an aggrevate movement of eight points, no small potatoes. Looking more closely at the data, we see that whereas George Bush won GOPers by 93-6 in 2004, McCain carried this group by 87-13, a movement of 13 points towards the blue team. This is a bit more evidence that the very slight 31-30 advantage highlighted in the article really does not mean much.
Statewide, Republicans still outpace Democrats in terms of total registered voters — though the numbers are closing and Democrats now count more active voters among their ranks than Republicans.
Independents, who make up the largest group of registered voters, trailed Republicans and Democrats in turnout this year. About 100,000 fewer unaffiliated voters cast ballots than did Republicans or Democrats. About 67 percent of registered independents voted in the election.
The key to the election, though, was how those unaffiliated people voted, said David Flaherty, chief executive of voter tracking firm Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies, which works with Republican candidates.
"The Republican get-out-the-vote effort executed very well," Flaherty said. "But at the end of the day, doing all those things right, it's about appealing to unaffiliated voters."
Yes and no. Sure, independents held a big role in the outcome in Colorado (as in just about every other state), but it is was only one piece of the electoral puzzle. In 2004, self-identified indies made up 33% of all votes, and they broke for Kerry 52-45. This year, they went up to 39%, and broke to Obama by a bit better 55-44 split, an aggregate movement of +3 points (which does mean more given the 6% turnout increase). In other words, there was key improvement here, but I am not sure I would say it was the reason Obama carried Colorado. When you win a state by 54-45, there are multiple reasons for it. I won't get into my analysis of Colorado again, needless to say there is oodles of data and armchair conclusions in my posts linked above.
To be sure, the gap in turnout between Republicans and Democrats this year was small, nowhere near the wide advantage Republicans once held, Ciruli said. About 15,600 more Republicans voted in the election than Democrats, out of a record 2.4 million total voters statewide. In terms of turnout, slightly more than 80 percent of all registered Republicans voted this year, compared with about 79 percent of registered Democrats.[...]
But state Republican Party chairman Dick Wadhams sees a silver lining in his party's 2008 storm clouds: The GOP turnout machine's still got it.
"This is probably the best effort we ever had in Colorado," Wadhams said. "We got the Republican vote out."
I know what spin is. It is used by both parties, especially after they have suffered a bad loss. Dick Wadhams, who spearheaded Bob Schaffer's Senate campaign this year, had a rough go of it, as Schaffer was crushed by Mark Udall, the man Wadham all-but-renamed "Boulder Liberal" in an attempt to tarnish him. But to say that he is satisfied with his party's turnout is a lot to take. The Colorado GOP is in bad shape today, and the exit data provides little comfort.
But nothing succeeds like success, and with that in mind the Colorado GOP is going to have two opportunities to make a comeback in 2010 with the Senate and governor's contests. Given that Bill Ritter was elected by something like 17 points in 2006, he is likely safe for re-election. But if Wadhams can keep Tom Tancredo out and recruit former Governor Bill Owens to run for Senate, he might be able to get a key victory under his belt. Owens could definitely win, but any loss would set the party back even further.
In the last few years, Democrats have taken over the state legislature, flipped a 5-2 deficit in the congressional delegation to a current 5-2 advantage, and have won both Senate seats and the governor's mansion, two decisively. Colorado is not yet New Jersey in terms of political make-up and Democratic reliability, but anyone claiming that the state is now at this moment basically even would be fooling himself.
Artur Davis
It is never too early to focus on the next cycle, so we are going to start looking at the 2009 and 2010 contests in short order. One race that has fallen under the radar so far, and will probably not garner much attention until it happens is the Alabama's governor's contest which will be held in just under two years. With the governorship coming open (two-term Gov. Bob Riley is term-limited), there will almost certainly be a long line of candidates for the seat.
While this is Alabama, this is not a seat that Democrats cannot contest. Like a lot of strongly conservative states in the South and the West, Alabama voters may not like sending Democrats to Washington as U.S. Senators, but they have no problem electing Dems to the governor's mansion. Indeed, Riley's predecessor was popular Democrat Don Siegelman, who Riley beat by only a few thousand votes in one of the tightest races in 2002. In others words, don't write this one off just yet.
Anyway, the name I will be watching here is Rep. Artur Davis of the Seventh District (made up of the famous "Black Belt" of counties in southern Alabama). Davis, a moderate Democrat and former federal prosecutor is making it more and more clear that he intends to run for governor now that he has been passed over for the Attorney General's job. While Davis may face staunch competition from men like Lieutentant Governor Jim Folsom Jr. (a former governor himself, and the son of the very famous former governor "Big Jim" Folsom), and State Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, the prospect of a black candidate for governor on the general election ballot is very intriguing. Despite his moderation, should Davis win the Democratic primary, it will be fascinating to see how well he is able to do in a conservative and Deep South state.
This is a race to watch. For what it is worth, I do not think Davis would be able to win in a state like Alabama where voting is generally deeply polarized along racial lines. Any strong showing by Davis would be an incredible job by the House member. The first polling will be interesting to see, but we should also wait to find out if Davis can navigate a potentially difficult primary first.
While this is Alabama, this is not a seat that Democrats cannot contest. Like a lot of strongly conservative states in the South and the West, Alabama voters may not like sending Democrats to Washington as U.S. Senators, but they have no problem electing Dems to the governor's mansion. Indeed, Riley's predecessor was popular Democrat Don Siegelman, who Riley beat by only a few thousand votes in one of the tightest races in 2002. In others words, don't write this one off just yet.
Anyway, the name I will be watching here is Rep. Artur Davis of the Seventh District (made up of the famous "Black Belt" of counties in southern Alabama). Davis, a moderate Democrat and former federal prosecutor is making it more and more clear that he intends to run for governor now that he has been passed over for the Attorney General's job. While Davis may face staunch competition from men like Lieutentant Governor Jim Folsom Jr. (a former governor himself, and the son of the very famous former governor "Big Jim" Folsom), and State Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, the prospect of a black candidate for governor on the general election ballot is very intriguing. Despite his moderation, should Davis win the Democratic primary, it will be fascinating to see how well he is able to do in a conservative and Deep South state.
This is a race to watch. For what it is worth, I do not think Davis would be able to win in a state like Alabama where voting is generally deeply polarized along racial lines. Any strong showing by Davis would be an incredible job by the House member. The first polling will be interesting to see, but we should also wait to find out if Davis can navigate a potentially difficult primary first.
Ohio Republicans Seek to Restrict Early Voting
Maybe someone can explain to me the rationale behind restricting the ability of people to cast votes. I've never understood it, but sure enough, once again a bloc of politicians is trying to do just that, this time in Ohio where the Republican-controlled State House recently passed a bill to add redistrictions to early voting in the state.
The bill would eliminate a Golden Week window in which citizens can register to vote and cast absentee votes at the same time. It would push the start of early voting from 35 days before the election to 20 days and require absentee voters to fully complete ballot envelope statements to be counted. Election observers would also be allowed to watch voting at all times.
House Speaker Jon Husted, a Dayton-area Republican, told reporters the bill was merely intended to implement recent Supreme Court rulings as well as clean up elections law that [Secretary of State Jennifer] Brunner has said needs clarification.
One can wrap a change like this in any wrapping he desires, but it cannot mask the true intent behind laws like these: to keep voters from voting. If you look at voting numbers from this past November, early voters were often overwhelmingly Democrats. While there are various reasons for this voting behavior which I won't delve into here, it pretty clearly exists.
With Republicans taking a pounding in races across the country, particularly in Ohio where Obama carried the state and Democrats picked up three new congressional seats, it seems like the GOP majority in the legislature wants to try to change the rules to decrease a Democratic strength. That is what this law is about, plain and simple. Again, I see absolutely no reason to curtail early voting anywhere, so long as there protections for that boogeyman known as "fraud". Early voting allows people who might otherwise be busy on election to be allowed to go to the polls and cast a ballot. It provides key flexibility and thus increases turnout. I concede that turnout in Ohio actually dropped this past year in comparison to 2004, but that does not establish that early voting was either a failure or unnecessary. Such an argument would be a partisan pretext.
This bill is a foolish and nakedly political piece of legislation. Governor Ted Strickland has not yet promised a veto of this bill, but hopefully he will.
The bill would eliminate a Golden Week window in which citizens can register to vote and cast absentee votes at the same time. It would push the start of early voting from 35 days before the election to 20 days and require absentee voters to fully complete ballot envelope statements to be counted. Election observers would also be allowed to watch voting at all times.
House Speaker Jon Husted, a Dayton-area Republican, told reporters the bill was merely intended to implement recent Supreme Court rulings as well as clean up elections law that [Secretary of State Jennifer] Brunner has said needs clarification.
One can wrap a change like this in any wrapping he desires, but it cannot mask the true intent behind laws like these: to keep voters from voting. If you look at voting numbers from this past November, early voters were often overwhelmingly Democrats. While there are various reasons for this voting behavior which I won't delve into here, it pretty clearly exists.
With Republicans taking a pounding in races across the country, particularly in Ohio where Obama carried the state and Democrats picked up three new congressional seats, it seems like the GOP majority in the legislature wants to try to change the rules to decrease a Democratic strength. That is what this law is about, plain and simple. Again, I see absolutely no reason to curtail early voting anywhere, so long as there protections for that boogeyman known as "fraud". Early voting allows people who might otherwise be busy on election to be allowed to go to the polls and cast a ballot. It provides key flexibility and thus increases turnout. I concede that turnout in Ohio actually dropped this past year in comparison to 2004, but that does not establish that early voting was either a failure or unnecessary. Such an argument would be a partisan pretext.
This bill is a foolish and nakedly political piece of legislation. Governor Ted Strickland has not yet promised a veto of this bill, but hopefully he will.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Oh, and Forget John
One more point regarding Colorado: Bill Ritter should not seriously consider replacing Ken Salazar with his brother John, the congressman from Colorado's Third District. The district leans Republican, and removing John from it would likely help the GOP take the seat over in 2010. Not to mention the dynasty howls a Salazar pick would elicit.
A Regional Party?
Nate Silver is up with a very interesting post on a question we've been very interested in here in the past: namely, whether the GOP is becoming (or has become a regional party). I recommend you check it out. Later this morning, I will post some of my thoughts on Silver's analysis. I think he makes so great points, but I can't say I view his methodology here as perfect. Still worth a read.
The Hand of Ted
With Harry Reid lobbying David Paterson to appoint Caroline Kennedy to the Senate, and even Hillary Clinton coming out to tell her supporters not to oppose Kennedy, the hand-writing is on the wall with this one.
However, what really needs to be noted is that the fingerprints of Ted Kennedy are all over. Make no mistake: it was Ted was pressured and ultimately convinced Caroline to try to make the move to Washington. And it was Ted who lined up support immediately among some of the most important Democrats in America behind Caroline.
When Caroline is sworn in early next year (barring some very weird changes to the current climate), it will be because of her Uncle Ted. Boy, what Ted wants, Ted always gets.
However, what really needs to be noted is that the fingerprints of Ted Kennedy are all over. Make no mistake: it was Ted was pressured and ultimately convinced Caroline to try to make the move to Washington. And it was Ted who lined up support immediately among some of the most important Democrats in America behind Caroline.
When Caroline is sworn in early next year (barring some very weird changes to the current climate), it will be because of her Uncle Ted. Boy, what Ted wants, Ted always gets.
Memo to Bill Ritter: Pick Hick
With Ken Salazar leaving the Senate to become Obama's Interior Secretary, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter is going to have to tap a replacement to serve out the final two years of Salazar's term. While a lot of names have been bandied about, his choice is very easy: he should pick Denver mayor John Hickenlooper without reservation. Hick would be the best choice for the seat by far.
The reasons for this are pretty straightforward. First, Hick is very popular in Denver, the largest city in the state, so he would have an immediate base to build on. Second, despite unquestioned liberal views on the environment, Hick has some moderate streaks (such as on legalizing marijuana), and he has gotten along well with Republicans on issues.
Third, and perhaps most important, he has no legislative record. While some may argue that having a record as a legislator is a positive as it demonstates experience, really, the opposite is true when it comes to electoral politics: the longer the record you have, the bigger the liabilty. Someone who has spent years in Congress has cast hundreds of votes on very controversial issues, issues that are bound to make that person as many detractors as supporters.
This is the dilemma facing Congresswoman Diane DeGette, also of Denver. While she has a long congressional career, her record is also long, and it is unabashedly liberal. This would make her much easier to attack in a general campaign. Hick would not have these problems. Ditto Andrew Romanoff, the outgoing State House Speaker, who also would have baggage in a campaign.
One worry for Hickenlooper would be that he could be identified as the "Denver candidate" by Republicans in an effort to hurt him in the rural eastern and western parts of the state. However, I don't think this strategy would work since the campaign to tarnish Mark Udall this year as a "Boulder liberal" failed so miserably.
Salazar's appointment should worry Democrats. While Colorado has been trending Democratic in recent years, it is not yet New York, and this seat could still be lost. Of course, the weak Republican bench (there are only two GOP congressman, one of whom will be a freshman and the other is a second-term, ultra-conservative Evangelical from Colorado Springs) will aid Dems too; especially if the retiring Tom Tancredo is able to grab the GOP nomination, an eventuality I think is very possible.
In the end, then, Dems would be well served if Governor Ritter picks the best Democrat equipped to run statewide. Given his current popularity and his lack of a record, that person is John Hickenlooper.
The reasons for this are pretty straightforward. First, Hick is very popular in Denver, the largest city in the state, so he would have an immediate base to build on. Second, despite unquestioned liberal views on the environment, Hick has some moderate streaks (such as on legalizing marijuana), and he has gotten along well with Republicans on issues.
Third, and perhaps most important, he has no legislative record. While some may argue that having a record as a legislator is a positive as it demonstates experience, really, the opposite is true when it comes to electoral politics: the longer the record you have, the bigger the liabilty. Someone who has spent years in Congress has cast hundreds of votes on very controversial issues, issues that are bound to make that person as many detractors as supporters.
This is the dilemma facing Congresswoman Diane DeGette, also of Denver. While she has a long congressional career, her record is also long, and it is unabashedly liberal. This would make her much easier to attack in a general campaign. Hick would not have these problems. Ditto Andrew Romanoff, the outgoing State House Speaker, who also would have baggage in a campaign.
One worry for Hickenlooper would be that he could be identified as the "Denver candidate" by Republicans in an effort to hurt him in the rural eastern and western parts of the state. However, I don't think this strategy would work since the campaign to tarnish Mark Udall this year as a "Boulder liberal" failed so miserably.
Salazar's appointment should worry Democrats. While Colorado has been trending Democratic in recent years, it is not yet New York, and this seat could still be lost. Of course, the weak Republican bench (there are only two GOP congressman, one of whom will be a freshman and the other is a second-term, ultra-conservative Evangelical from Colorado Springs) will aid Dems too; especially if the retiring Tom Tancredo is able to grab the GOP nomination, an eventuality I think is very possible.
In the end, then, Dems would be well served if Governor Ritter picks the best Democrat equipped to run statewide. Given his current popularity and his lack of a record, that person is John Hickenlooper.
Interesting Blago Article
The NY Times has an interesting article today on the Blagojevich saga I recommend you check out. The piece is interested in the distinction between criminal activity under the law and merely conducting political deal-making, which is quite common. The article raises the possibility that the evidence against the governor is not extremely strong.
Ever since the country’s founding, prosecutors, defense lawyers and juries have been trying to define the difference between criminality and political deal-making. They have never established a clear-cut line between the offensive and the illegal, and the hours of wiretapped conversations involving Mr. Blagojevich, filled with crass, profane talk about benefiting from the Senate vacancy, may fall into a legal gray area.[...]
“This town is full of people who call themselves ambassadors, and all they did was pay $200,000 or $300,000 to the Republican or Democratic Party,” said Mr. Bennett, referring to a passage in the criminal complaint filed against the governor suggesting that Mr. Blagojevich was interested in an ambassadorial appointment in return for the Senate seat. “You have to wonder, How much of this guy’s problem was his language, rather than what he really did?”
Personally, if I was the governor's lawyer, I would argue in court that all of Mr. Blagojevich's talk was simply bluster, and that it did not cross the line into criminal activity. On the one hand, there are legitimate arguments in favor of these positions, as the material in the indictment and on the tapes is so outrageous that it almost seems like it can't be real.
That being said, Blagojevich is still totally screwed. No Illinois jury is ever going to unanimously acquit him, regardless of the evidence presented. All Patrick Fitzgerald has to do is play these tapes over and over, and the governor is cooked. Forget potential jurors declaring their open minds at juror selection -- that's all baloney. Look at the Stevens trial: they convicted him in hours because the jurors were predisposed to convict him despite the fact that the evidence was thin. A cranky, old, white Republican from Alaska just did not cut a sympathetic figure in front of a Washington, D.C. jury, particularly since he was accused of political corruption. He was screwed solely because of where the trial was, and he knew it, as evidenced by his attempts to move the trial to Alaska (where, in reverse, the jury would have acquitted him without listening to the evidence).
Blagojevich's best hope may be getting a staunchly Polish or North Side citizen on the jury and getting a hung panel. Sadly for him, because this is a federal trial, the panel will be selected from people throughout northern Illinois.
Ever since the country’s founding, prosecutors, defense lawyers and juries have been trying to define the difference between criminality and political deal-making. They have never established a clear-cut line between the offensive and the illegal, and the hours of wiretapped conversations involving Mr. Blagojevich, filled with crass, profane talk about benefiting from the Senate vacancy, may fall into a legal gray area.[...]
“This town is full of people who call themselves ambassadors, and all they did was pay $200,000 or $300,000 to the Republican or Democratic Party,” said Mr. Bennett, referring to a passage in the criminal complaint filed against the governor suggesting that Mr. Blagojevich was interested in an ambassadorial appointment in return for the Senate seat. “You have to wonder, How much of this guy’s problem was his language, rather than what he really did?”
Personally, if I was the governor's lawyer, I would argue in court that all of Mr. Blagojevich's talk was simply bluster, and that it did not cross the line into criminal activity. On the one hand, there are legitimate arguments in favor of these positions, as the material in the indictment and on the tapes is so outrageous that it almost seems like it can't be real.
That being said, Blagojevich is still totally screwed. No Illinois jury is ever going to unanimously acquit him, regardless of the evidence presented. All Patrick Fitzgerald has to do is play these tapes over and over, and the governor is cooked. Forget potential jurors declaring their open minds at juror selection -- that's all baloney. Look at the Stevens trial: they convicted him in hours because the jurors were predisposed to convict him despite the fact that the evidence was thin. A cranky, old, white Republican from Alaska just did not cut a sympathetic figure in front of a Washington, D.C. jury, particularly since he was accused of political corruption. He was screwed solely because of where the trial was, and he knew it, as evidenced by his attempts to move the trial to Alaska (where, in reverse, the jury would have acquitted him without listening to the evidence).
Blagojevich's best hope may be getting a staunchly Polish or North Side citizen on the jury and getting a hung panel. Sadly for him, because this is a federal trial, the panel will be selected from people throughout northern Illinois.
Smart Dems
There might hope for some Democrats yet, with news that the Illinois State Legislature has tabled the bill to create a special election for Senate vacancies, opting instead to move to open impeachment proceedings of Governor Rod Blagojevich. As we talked about a couple of days ago, the measure was a classic political overreaction, and if made law, it could actually cost Democrats Obama's old seat, as a quick special election could allow an untainted Republican like Mark Kirk to beat a nominated Democrat, particularly someone from Chicago. It remains to be seen if this legislation is dead for good, but for the time being, Illinois state Dems showed more forward-thinking political intelligence than Dick Durbin, Lisa Madigan, and others who have called for a legal change.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Stupid Dem Tricks
What could be sillier than Senator Evan Bayh's new attempts to create a moderate, blue dog caucus in the Senate? Why, that would be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid endorsing such an idea. It seems that even after winning the White House and a score of new Senate seats, some high-profile Democrats still lack basic common political sense.
Maybe someone can explain to me why the newly-minted 58-person caucus (or perhaps 59-person caucus, assuming Al Franken wins the Minnesota recount) should immediately be carved up into ideological camps. Assuredly, a new blue dog caucus would move to accomplish just that. Oh wait, now I remember: because Evan Bayh is trying desperately to stay relevant. After all, Bayh, who was too cowardly to pursue a White House run -- despite coveting the job since the moment he got to Washington -- backed Hillary Clinton early and heavily. Finding himself as a back-bencher now with no upward path in the near future has to be tough, and finding a way to lead the Senate's moderate Dems would be a perfect balm for Bayh's political ambitions and personal ego going forward.
Personally, I think these efforts are destined to fail for the same reasons already outlined by people smarter than I. This is because unlike in the House, Senators possess tremendous individual power in the form of unanimous consent and some other mechanisms. In the House, the majority leadership can and often does lead with an iron fist, but in the Senate, if just one single Senator wants, he or she can gum up the works and slow things down. This is precisely how Senator Tom Coburn is able to hold up the Senate so often. Consequently, getting a bloc of Senators to agree to pool their votes together on general matters and specific votes would be much harder for a new caucus group, as it would call on Senators to give up their individual power. And this is to say nothing for Senators checking their own egos for a larger group, something much less liklely in a body of a 100, where egos are even larger than in that oh-less-exclusive body of 435. For these reasons, I don't see Bayh being successful in his new venture.
In terms of Harry Reid, I think the issue is simply one of poor leadership and a plain lack of savvy. To be blunt, I just don't think he's very smart and his endorsement of a Senate blue dog caucus is indicative of that. I realize Reid is a moderate and he is also facing re-election in two years, but fracturing an already unruly body even further is not the way to run a caucus. Especially with Democrats in complete control of the federal government. Sadly, this is what I have come to expect from the man who was afraid to stand up to Joe Lieberman.
Maybe someone can explain to me why the newly-minted 58-person caucus (or perhaps 59-person caucus, assuming Al Franken wins the Minnesota recount) should immediately be carved up into ideological camps. Assuredly, a new blue dog caucus would move to accomplish just that. Oh wait, now I remember: because Evan Bayh is trying desperately to stay relevant. After all, Bayh, who was too cowardly to pursue a White House run -- despite coveting the job since the moment he got to Washington -- backed Hillary Clinton early and heavily. Finding himself as a back-bencher now with no upward path in the near future has to be tough, and finding a way to lead the Senate's moderate Dems would be a perfect balm for Bayh's political ambitions and personal ego going forward.
Personally, I think these efforts are destined to fail for the same reasons already outlined by people smarter than I. This is because unlike in the House, Senators possess tremendous individual power in the form of unanimous consent and some other mechanisms. In the House, the majority leadership can and often does lead with an iron fist, but in the Senate, if just one single Senator wants, he or she can gum up the works and slow things down. This is precisely how Senator Tom Coburn is able to hold up the Senate so often. Consequently, getting a bloc of Senators to agree to pool their votes together on general matters and specific votes would be much harder for a new caucus group, as it would call on Senators to give up their individual power. And this is to say nothing for Senators checking their own egos for a larger group, something much less liklely in a body of a 100, where egos are even larger than in that oh-less-exclusive body of 435. For these reasons, I don't see Bayh being successful in his new venture.
In terms of Harry Reid, I think the issue is simply one of poor leadership and a plain lack of savvy. To be blunt, I just don't think he's very smart and his endorsement of a Senate blue dog caucus is indicative of that. I realize Reid is a moderate and he is also facing re-election in two years, but fracturing an already unruly body even further is not the way to run a caucus. Especially with Democrats in complete control of the federal government. Sadly, this is what I have come to expect from the man who was afraid to stand up to Joe Lieberman.
Why Senator Caroline Kennedy is Good for the Democratic Party
It's no secret around these parts that I am not a fan of political dynasties, and I cannot stand nepotism. I found the appointment to the Senate of Joe Biden's former Chief of Staff in order to hold the seat for Biden's son -- by blocking the appointment of the Lieutenant Governor -- was extremely distasteful. Given my views, then, you may find the following declaration surprising and perhaps even hyprocritical, but as a Democrat, I think the appointment of Caroline Kennedy to the U.S. Senate would be a very good thing for the Democratic Party.
My rationale here is pretty simple. I think that putting Kennedy in the Senate would be a huge plus over the long haul for the national Democratic Party because of all the positive pr she would generate. For all the negatives being tossed out there right now -- she has no experience, she is trying to leap-frog over others who are more qualified and have paid their dues, given that she has avoided the limelight her entire life she would be ill-suited to deliver for New York, she would bring Kennedy baggage, etc -- people are forgetting one thing: this woman is JFK's daughter! That by itself would make her an big asset for the Party.
There's no question that today, JFK remains a mystical, beloved figure in America, not just in the northeast, but everywhere. As a result, critics should forget what she could do policy-wise or for the state of New York and realize that having her on a national stage with Barack Obama would be another signal of the national political renaissance in this country and in the Democratic Party.
On the one hand, Dems now have Barack Obama, who is going to lead the country for at least the next four years. Politically, he represents the future. Kennedy herself could play a huge role in pumping up the Democratic Party brand in a similar manner. Every time Kennedy is on tv giving a speech, the media is going to show a picture of her father. That's a given. And let's just say that if you put JFK's picture up giving a speech, it would not do poorly in a focus group. Given Kennedy's likely focus on issues like education, poverty, and all those other flowery things, the sterling publicity alone would be worth its weight in gold for the national party's image.
Contrast that with the current Republican Party, whose leadership is made up almost exclusively of two types of people: wealthy, white-haired white guys, and wealthy gray-haired white guys. Oh, and most of them today are from one region of the nation: the South. Quite the difference, huh? What types of figures would be more appealing on television and to Americans in 2009: Barack Obama and Caroline Kennedy, or John Boehner and Mitch McConnell? What's more likeable, Bill Clinton and JFK, or George Bush and endless references to Ronald Reagan? Another easy call. Putting Caroline Kennedy in the Senate would help burnish the Democratic Party's image not just as the party of the future, but also the party with the richer history, the party that led the country when times were good, as opposed to the last eight years. I think any of the negatives Kennedy would bring would be easily outweighed by these considerations.
Barack Obama himself has to love this idea. For starters, Ted Kennedy was almost certainly the most important endorsement Obama got in the campaign, as it helped him gain enormous credibility at a time he needed it. But more importantly, every time Obama is on stage with Caroline Kennedy, the pictures of JFK will come out on the news telecasts and 24-hour news feeds, and thus the JFK-Obama comparisons will flow, whether or not they are intentional. You think Obama doesn't like that idea?
Let me reiterate how much I hate political nepotism like this. Caroline Kennedy has not only never paid any political dues, but she has actively avoided real politics her entire life. What she is doing is as bad as what Hillary did in 2000 when she jumped over several senior Democrats to take Dan Moynihan's open seat. Additionally, there are big questions about how effective she would be as a Senator to New Yorkers (which should obviously be the biggest consideration for both her and Governor David Paterson, to say nothing of the raw politics we are talking about here).
One other minor consideration. Caroline Kennedy is not Ted Kennedy. Republicans would be very hard-pressed to make her out into some negative, divisive figure. She has none of the personal or political history of her uncle, or several other Kennedys for that matter. She is an elegant figure (in many ways like her mother), and is likeable. Besides, Ted has assumed lion status in American politics today and he is attacked less, especially since his illness was disclosed. So I don't think Caroline Kennedy would be a touchable figure as cheap political attacks go, and any GOPers dumb enough to try using her in that way would have a very hard time succeeding.
Democrats should be smart enough to look past the issues here to focus on the bigger picture outlined above. Having Caroline Kennedy in the Senate would be a boon to both the incoming President and the national Democratic Party. It would be a masterstroke. Whether or not she gets the appointment is up in the air, but I find it telling that her people have made her desire to serve so public. The Kennedys are not stupid, and when they want something they usually get it, so I don't think that move was made in haste. Plus, by appointing her, David Paterson actually does not have to make the choice of tapping one deserving New York congressman over several others who want the job. That is actually a plus in his personal calculus.
So, we will see. But from a purely political standpoint -- and that is always the angle I look at first -- putting Caroline Kennedy in the Senate would be a brilliant political move. And no, I am not, and have never really been a big Kennedy fan, so these are not the babblings of a JFK junkie.
My rationale here is pretty simple. I think that putting Kennedy in the Senate would be a huge plus over the long haul for the national Democratic Party because of all the positive pr she would generate. For all the negatives being tossed out there right now -- she has no experience, she is trying to leap-frog over others who are more qualified and have paid their dues, given that she has avoided the limelight her entire life she would be ill-suited to deliver for New York, she would bring Kennedy baggage, etc -- people are forgetting one thing: this woman is JFK's daughter! That by itself would make her an big asset for the Party.
There's no question that today, JFK remains a mystical, beloved figure in America, not just in the northeast, but everywhere. As a result, critics should forget what she could do policy-wise or for the state of New York and realize that having her on a national stage with Barack Obama would be another signal of the national political renaissance in this country and in the Democratic Party.
On the one hand, Dems now have Barack Obama, who is going to lead the country for at least the next four years. Politically, he represents the future. Kennedy herself could play a huge role in pumping up the Democratic Party brand in a similar manner. Every time Kennedy is on tv giving a speech, the media is going to show a picture of her father. That's a given. And let's just say that if you put JFK's picture up giving a speech, it would not do poorly in a focus group. Given Kennedy's likely focus on issues like education, poverty, and all those other flowery things, the sterling publicity alone would be worth its weight in gold for the national party's image.
Contrast that with the current Republican Party, whose leadership is made up almost exclusively of two types of people: wealthy, white-haired white guys, and wealthy gray-haired white guys. Oh, and most of them today are from one region of the nation: the South. Quite the difference, huh? What types of figures would be more appealing on television and to Americans in 2009: Barack Obama and Caroline Kennedy, or John Boehner and Mitch McConnell? What's more likeable, Bill Clinton and JFK, or George Bush and endless references to Ronald Reagan? Another easy call. Putting Caroline Kennedy in the Senate would help burnish the Democratic Party's image not just as the party of the future, but also the party with the richer history, the party that led the country when times were good, as opposed to the last eight years. I think any of the negatives Kennedy would bring would be easily outweighed by these considerations.
Barack Obama himself has to love this idea. For starters, Ted Kennedy was almost certainly the most important endorsement Obama got in the campaign, as it helped him gain enormous credibility at a time he needed it. But more importantly, every time Obama is on stage with Caroline Kennedy, the pictures of JFK will come out on the news telecasts and 24-hour news feeds, and thus the JFK-Obama comparisons will flow, whether or not they are intentional. You think Obama doesn't like that idea?
Let me reiterate how much I hate political nepotism like this. Caroline Kennedy has not only never paid any political dues, but she has actively avoided real politics her entire life. What she is doing is as bad as what Hillary did in 2000 when she jumped over several senior Democrats to take Dan Moynihan's open seat. Additionally, there are big questions about how effective she would be as a Senator to New Yorkers (which should obviously be the biggest consideration for both her and Governor David Paterson, to say nothing of the raw politics we are talking about here).
One other minor consideration. Caroline Kennedy is not Ted Kennedy. Republicans would be very hard-pressed to make her out into some negative, divisive figure. She has none of the personal or political history of her uncle, or several other Kennedys for that matter. She is an elegant figure (in many ways like her mother), and is likeable. Besides, Ted has assumed lion status in American politics today and he is attacked less, especially since his illness was disclosed. So I don't think Caroline Kennedy would be a touchable figure as cheap political attacks go, and any GOPers dumb enough to try using her in that way would have a very hard time succeeding.
Democrats should be smart enough to look past the issues here to focus on the bigger picture outlined above. Having Caroline Kennedy in the Senate would be a boon to both the incoming President and the national Democratic Party. It would be a masterstroke. Whether or not she gets the appointment is up in the air, but I find it telling that her people have made her desire to serve so public. The Kennedys are not stupid, and when they want something they usually get it, so I don't think that move was made in haste. Plus, by appointing her, David Paterson actually does not have to make the choice of tapping one deserving New York congressman over several others who want the job. That is actually a plus in his personal calculus.
So, we will see. But from a purely political standpoint -- and that is always the angle I look at first -- putting Caroline Kennedy in the Senate would be a brilliant political move. And no, I am not, and have never really been a big Kennedy fan, so these are not the babblings of a JFK junkie.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Campbell Overload
Is it just me, or does it seem that there is an ad for Campbell Brown's CNN show on every webpage on the Internet? It seems like everywhere I turn, I see Campbell's smiling face and how her show is all about 'no bias' and 'no bull.' There's no question that Campbell is easy on the eyes, but I still don't think I will be watching her show much for what it's worth.
Incidentally, this deluge of ads reminds me a tremendous amount of when CNN was hyping the now-departed Paula Zahn's new show after she left Fox News. Like Brown, Zahn is pretty attractive, and CNN worked her profile to the hilt. Still, we all know how that turned out. Brown, who was plucked from MSNBC should be careful and not take her new-found news stardom for granted. Personally, I give her show a year.
Incidentally, this deluge of ads reminds me a tremendous amount of when CNN was hyping the now-departed Paula Zahn's new show after she left Fox News. Like Brown, Zahn is pretty attractive, and CNN worked her profile to the hilt. Still, we all know how that turned out. Brown, who was plucked from MSNBC should be careful and not take her new-found news stardom for granted. Personally, I give her show a year.
That's Cold
Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune published the names of the people who had been submitted to Rod Blagojevich by Rahm Emanuel as acceptable to President-elect Obama to take his vacated Senate seat. The five names were state Attorney General Lisa Madigan, state Veterans Affairs head Tammy Duckworth, congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, and state comptroller Dan Hynes. Of course, this list was submitted before this week's indictment of the governor was handed up.
What is most interesting is who is missing from this list, namely congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. To Jackson, who was one of Obama's national co-chairs and one of his earliest supporters, this has to be a real kick in the testicles. Over the last few days, he has been dealing with his name mixed deep in the Blagojevich scandal, and now he is learning that Obama did not even think highly enough of him to include him in his top five names for the Senate seat that Jackson has long coveted. Ouch.
I can't say I disagree with Obama's judgment here, however. As loyal as Jackson has been to Obama, he has never been a great name for the Senate. While he would likely be able to win a full term in a state as blue as Illinois (at least before his name was connected to this indictment), he is very liberal to the point that he could have had some trouble running statewide. Additionally, having a senator named Jesse Jackson would not have played well in a lot of parts of this country. Jackson may not be his father, but fair or unfair, having him in an elevated position in the Senate was not to the advantage of Democrats, and thus not to the advantage of Obama.
For these reasons, I think Obama was right to move away from endorsing Jackson for the seat. That being said, I wonder if he at least gave the congressman some kind of warning. I doubt it. I presume he and his advisors never thought the list would get out. Now, once all of this dust has settled, he and Jackson may no longer be so chummy. Politics is a rough business.
One more thing. What was with including Madigan on the list? Team Obama knew that he and Madigan hate each other, yet they included her name anyway. Politically, I found that one puzzling, and I think it kind of shows how little regard the President-elect and his team held for Blagojevich. Given the events of the last few days, clearly such a low opinion for the governor turned out to be quite merited, but I just found Madigan's name on the list pretty interesting.
What is most interesting is who is missing from this list, namely congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. To Jackson, who was one of Obama's national co-chairs and one of his earliest supporters, this has to be a real kick in the testicles. Over the last few days, he has been dealing with his name mixed deep in the Blagojevich scandal, and now he is learning that Obama did not even think highly enough of him to include him in his top five names for the Senate seat that Jackson has long coveted. Ouch.
I can't say I disagree with Obama's judgment here, however. As loyal as Jackson has been to Obama, he has never been a great name for the Senate. While he would likely be able to win a full term in a state as blue as Illinois (at least before his name was connected to this indictment), he is very liberal to the point that he could have had some trouble running statewide. Additionally, having a senator named Jesse Jackson would not have played well in a lot of parts of this country. Jackson may not be his father, but fair or unfair, having him in an elevated position in the Senate was not to the advantage of Democrats, and thus not to the advantage of Obama.
For these reasons, I think Obama was right to move away from endorsing Jackson for the seat. That being said, I wonder if he at least gave the congressman some kind of warning. I doubt it. I presume he and his advisors never thought the list would get out. Now, once all of this dust has settled, he and Jackson may no longer be so chummy. Politics is a rough business.
One more thing. What was with including Madigan on the list? Team Obama knew that he and Madigan hate each other, yet they included her name anyway. Politically, I found that one puzzling, and I think it kind of shows how little regard the President-elect and his team held for Blagojevich. Given the events of the last few days, clearly such a low opinion for the governor turned out to be quite merited, but I just found Madigan's name on the list pretty interesting.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Classy Until the Last Day
Can someone explain this one to me? How can the White House refuse to let the President-elect live in the Blair House in the final two weeks before January 20? Claiming that the house is being used for prior events is bizarre and classless.
The White House has turned down a request from the family of President-elect Barack Obama to move into Blair House in early January so that his daughters can start school on Jan. 5.
The Obamas were told that Blair House, where incoming presidents usually stay in the five days before Inauguration Day, is booked in early January, a spokesperson to the Obama transition said. “We explored the idea so that the girls could start school on schedule,’ the spokesperson said. “But, there were previously scheduled events and guests that couldn’t be displaced.”
It remained unclear who on Bushes guest list outranked the incoming President.
“It’s not a public schedule,” said Sally McDonough, spokeswoman for First Lady Laura Bush, in refusing to disclose who was staying at Blair House. “It’s not a question of outranking the Obamas. Blair House will be available to them on January 15.”
Ms. McDonough said “there’s nothing more to say other than that it’s not available and won’t be available until January 15.” She added that “you’re trying to make a story out of something that’s not a story.”
A State Department official said he didn’t know of any foreign dignitaries staying at Blair House in early January.
A White House official said that Mr. Bush does not have family or friends from Texas staying at Blair House during the period which the Obamas requested. But Blair House, the official said, has been booked for “receptions and gatherings” by members of the outgoing Bush administration. Those receptions, the official said, “don’t make it suitable for full-time occupancy by the Obamas yet.”
The Blair House is being used for parties for administration officials? How about moving them guys?!
This really is not about politics, it is about simple class. It is telling that even weeks away from Bush leaving, his administration continues to exude bipartisan class.
The White House has turned down a request from the family of President-elect Barack Obama to move into Blair House in early January so that his daughters can start school on Jan. 5.
The Obamas were told that Blair House, where incoming presidents usually stay in the five days before Inauguration Day, is booked in early January, a spokesperson to the Obama transition said. “We explored the idea so that the girls could start school on schedule,’ the spokesperson said. “But, there were previously scheduled events and guests that couldn’t be displaced.”
It remained unclear who on Bushes guest list outranked the incoming President.
“It’s not a public schedule,” said Sally McDonough, spokeswoman for First Lady Laura Bush, in refusing to disclose who was staying at Blair House. “It’s not a question of outranking the Obamas. Blair House will be available to them on January 15.”
Ms. McDonough said “there’s nothing more to say other than that it’s not available and won’t be available until January 15.” She added that “you’re trying to make a story out of something that’s not a story.”
A State Department official said he didn’t know of any foreign dignitaries staying at Blair House in early January.
A White House official said that Mr. Bush does not have family or friends from Texas staying at Blair House during the period which the Obamas requested. But Blair House, the official said, has been booked for “receptions and gatherings” by members of the outgoing Bush administration. Those receptions, the official said, “don’t make it suitable for full-time occupancy by the Obamas yet.”
The Blair House is being used for parties for administration officials? How about moving them guys?!
This really is not about politics, it is about simple class. It is telling that even weeks away from Bush leaving, his administration continues to exude bipartisan class.
And We Head Into Double Overtime
....Or perhaps it is triple OT, as I've lost count of all of the twists and turns in the incredible Minnesota Senate race. Today there were several key developments in the race, most of them very beneficial to Al Franken's chances. Much of it is detailed here. Needless to say, Al Franken is still down (God knows by how many votes exactly), but definitely in the game.
Yet, we are not going to have any definitive answer on a winner for a while, because no matter what the state canvassing board ultimately rules on the rejected absentee ballots, challenges, and assorted missing votes, the loser will take this one to court. In fact, the Coleman campaign is already going to court (detailed in the article). Anyone who says they know what is going to happen is lying through their teeth. I won't even venture a shot-in-the-dark guess at this point. It would be pointless.
I can guarantee one thing: should Coleman remain ahead, the cowardly Harry Reid would not dare upset the certified results, even if fraud is pled to the Senate by Al Franken. If Reid did not have the stones to take on Joe Lieberman, there is no chance he would seat Al Franken in the face of what would be furious Republican outrage. But this one is as fascinating as they come. It's not every day that you see a Senate race determined by less than one-hundreth of one-percent.
Yet, we are not going to have any definitive answer on a winner for a while, because no matter what the state canvassing board ultimately rules on the rejected absentee ballots, challenges, and assorted missing votes, the loser will take this one to court. In fact, the Coleman campaign is already going to court (detailed in the article). Anyone who says they know what is going to happen is lying through their teeth. I won't even venture a shot-in-the-dark guess at this point. It would be pointless.
I can guarantee one thing: should Coleman remain ahead, the cowardly Harry Reid would not dare upset the certified results, even if fraud is pled to the Senate by Al Franken. If Reid did not have the stones to take on Joe Lieberman, there is no chance he would seat Al Franken in the face of what would be furious Republican outrage. But this one is as fascinating as they come. It's not every day that you see a Senate race determined by less than one-hundreth of one-percent.
Quote of the Day
"To those of you who have jobs lined up, I -- congratulations. To those not exactly sure what comes next -- I know how you feel."
-President Bush, speaking to Texas A & M graduates
Forgive me, but can someone tell me when in his life George W. Bush would have ever had to worry about finding a job?
-President Bush, speaking to Texas A & M graduates
Forgive me, but can someone tell me when in his life George W. Bush would have ever had to worry about finding a job?
Calm Down, Carol
In the large class of foolish, over-ambitious politicians, we should add a new name today: congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter, Democrat from New Hampshire's Second District. News is coming that Shea-Porter, who was just elected to her second term, is seriously considering running for United States Senate in 2010 against incumbent Judd Gregg. Wow. While we know that members of Congress tend to have incredible swell heads, this one really stands out.
Shea-Porter is definitely an interesting one. She scored perhaps the biggest surprise of the night in 2006, when she ousted Jeb Bradley 51-49 in a race no one thought she could win, including the DCCC. Last month, she beat Bradley in a rematch by a bigger margin, no doubt aided by Barack Obama's landslide in New Hampshire. However, I continue to believe that Shea-Porter is something of a fluke. She is not a terribly talented politician, nor are her approval ratings in her district that impressive. Sure, she won a formerly-held Republican seat, but whether she is ready for the even-bigger-time remains to be seen.
Shea-Porter is emboldened by GOP Sen. John Sununu's bad loss last month to Jeanne Shaheen. And also, no one can question that the Granite State has moved drastically towards the Democratic Party in the last few years. That being said, beating Judd Gregg is going to be very difficult. Gregg, who was once governor before being elected to the Senate in 1992, remains very popular in the state. His quiet, low-key style has played well for a while, and he has not committed any fireable offense (besides have an "R" next to his name). I will state on the record right now that unless New Hampshire has truly become a reliable blue state, Gregg would beat Shea-Porter head-to-head.
Really, the best -- and perhaps only guy -- who could beat Gregg is Gov. John Lynch, who may be even more popular than the senior senator. If Bob Menendez and the DSCC can coax Lynch into the contest, I think he's better than even-money to win. But Carol Shea-Porter is not John Lynch. I don't know who exactly has been whispering in her ear, and likely she is puffing out her chest after winning a second term, but I don't think she has what it takes to beat Gregg. And to be fair, I think the state's other rep, Paul Hodes, would also have a tough time winning. Dems today feel good about knocking off Gregg in two years, but they should not take him lightly. And they can start by convicing Shea-Porter to sit this one out and hold a seat she is lucky to have in the first place.
Shea-Porter is definitely an interesting one. She scored perhaps the biggest surprise of the night in 2006, when she ousted Jeb Bradley 51-49 in a race no one thought she could win, including the DCCC. Last month, she beat Bradley in a rematch by a bigger margin, no doubt aided by Barack Obama's landslide in New Hampshire. However, I continue to believe that Shea-Porter is something of a fluke. She is not a terribly talented politician, nor are her approval ratings in her district that impressive. Sure, she won a formerly-held Republican seat, but whether she is ready for the even-bigger-time remains to be seen.
Shea-Porter is emboldened by GOP Sen. John Sununu's bad loss last month to Jeanne Shaheen. And also, no one can question that the Granite State has moved drastically towards the Democratic Party in the last few years. That being said, beating Judd Gregg is going to be very difficult. Gregg, who was once governor before being elected to the Senate in 1992, remains very popular in the state. His quiet, low-key style has played well for a while, and he has not committed any fireable offense (besides have an "R" next to his name). I will state on the record right now that unless New Hampshire has truly become a reliable blue state, Gregg would beat Shea-Porter head-to-head.
Really, the best -- and perhaps only guy -- who could beat Gregg is Gov. John Lynch, who may be even more popular than the senior senator. If Bob Menendez and the DSCC can coax Lynch into the contest, I think he's better than even-money to win. But Carol Shea-Porter is not John Lynch. I don't know who exactly has been whispering in her ear, and likely she is puffing out her chest after winning a second term, but I don't think she has what it takes to beat Gregg. And to be fair, I think the state's other rep, Paul Hodes, would also have a tough time winning. Dems today feel good about knocking off Gregg in two years, but they should not take him lightly. And they can start by convicing Shea-Porter to sit this one out and hold a seat she is lucky to have in the first place.
Ulterior Motives
Make no mistake: when it comes to politics, the politics never ends. Case in point today comes from the Rod Blagojevich saga, where Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is appealing to the state Supreme Court to strip the embattled governor of most of his powers and award them to the Lieutenant Governor. My response is not to applaud Madigan, but simply to state that the 2010 campaign has apparently already started.
You see, for some time Ms. Madigan has coveted the governor's chair, and she now sees it within her reach. Madigan was likely going to primary challenge the unpopular Blagojevich before this scandal broke, and those plans obviously have not changed in the last week. Her posturing today should be viewed through the lens of someone trying to grab the headlines and advance her political career.
I have no question that this is a very unusual case, as Blagojevich is on tape hatching almost unbelievable and illegal schemes, yet he remains in office. But this is precisely why we have checks-and-balances and that device called "impeachment." It is up to the state legislature to remove an executive where it sees fit, and I am sure Springfield will move in that direction should the governor stay. Of course, it is within Madigan's legal rights to try to manuever and also make Blagojevich's life uncomfortable, but forgive me for thinking that she is using all of this to make a name for herself as a reformer.
And it's worked: she was all over the news today. Her credentials as a Chicago outsider are now burnished further. Not to mention that her long-running feud with the governor (her father, the State House Speaker is also a longtime foe of Blagojevich) can only help her make the case against Blago now. In the words of Sid Farkus, I think it's safe to say that barring a very unforeseen development, Lisa Madigan will be the next governor of Illinois. That's fine, and Blagojevich clearly needs to go, but I just can't impute the purest motives to her moves today. It just goes to show you that when it comes to government and elected officials, the politics never, ever ends.
And guess who's the guest on Meet the Press this weekend? Lisa Madigan.
You see, for some time Ms. Madigan has coveted the governor's chair, and she now sees it within her reach. Madigan was likely going to primary challenge the unpopular Blagojevich before this scandal broke, and those plans obviously have not changed in the last week. Her posturing today should be viewed through the lens of someone trying to grab the headlines and advance her political career.
I have no question that this is a very unusual case, as Blagojevich is on tape hatching almost unbelievable and illegal schemes, yet he remains in office. But this is precisely why we have checks-and-balances and that device called "impeachment." It is up to the state legislature to remove an executive where it sees fit, and I am sure Springfield will move in that direction should the governor stay. Of course, it is within Madigan's legal rights to try to manuever and also make Blagojevich's life uncomfortable, but forgive me for thinking that she is using all of this to make a name for herself as a reformer.
And it's worked: she was all over the news today. Her credentials as a Chicago outsider are now burnished further. Not to mention that her long-running feud with the governor (her father, the State House Speaker is also a longtime foe of Blagojevich) can only help her make the case against Blago now. In the words of Sid Farkus, I think it's safe to say that barring a very unforeseen development, Lisa Madigan will be the next governor of Illinois. That's fine, and Blagojevich clearly needs to go, but I just can't impute the purest motives to her moves today. It just goes to show you that when it comes to government and elected officials, the politics never, ever ends.
And guess who's the guest on Meet the Press this weekend? Lisa Madigan.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
RIP, Robert Prosky
I was deeply saddened when I opened up the paper yesterday to see that Robert Prosky, one of my favorite actors, had passed away at the not-that-old age of 77. Most people probably don't know Prosky by name. He is one of hundreds of supremely talented character actors who get little recognition, but who have more talent than all of the George Clooneys and Leonardo DiCaprio's combined.
Personally, my favorite roles of Prosky's were as a kindly priest in "Rudy", a viciously cantankerous garage owner in "Christine" (picture above), and as shadowy baseball team owner in "The Natural." Really, he was a man whose versatility and sunny demeanor defined him. In one of the obits I read, it noted that in back-to-back films, he played the head of the CIA and the KGB. Now that's versatility! To me, a versatile actor is far more talented, more likeable, and more interesting than a hollow leading man or woman (hello Nicole Kidman). Apparently, Prosky had been a talented stage actor as well, and he lived right here in Washington. Two facts I did not know.
You Can't Make it Up
After a lot of debate, it is now official: Politico is a total joke. Any attempts for me or others to claim that the publication is objective should go out the window at this point. Check out the frontpage right now, at 9:12 AM. What's the top headline?
GOP Hopes Rises As Dems Hit Rough Patch
What is the evidence for this headline? According to the article, besides the Blagojevich scandal, Dems suffered bad losses in the Georgia Senate runoff, and the two House special elections in Louisiana last week. What. A. Load. Of. Garbage. Earth to Politico writers: LA-04 is an R+7 district, and Georgia is still Georgia, a state no one on earth ever reasonably expected to win. In terms of LA-02, the seat was lost because of Bill Jefferson's indictment, not because of a tarnished Democratic or Obama brand. The seat will flip back to the Democrats in two years -- you can bet your house on this. Incidentally, find me the people who argued that the Democratic win in TX-22 two years ago -- another political fluke -- was a sign that the GOP was in huge trouble. The fact that Politico is trying to kick up more dirt to bring down the Democrats one month after landslide wins is beyond pathetic.
Naturally, the other top pieces this morning are a smattering of other slanted "news":
Scandal, appointments give GOP hope
Transition site censors Blago questions
Dems rake cash from business
GOP may seek Bill Clinton's testimony
You really can't make this stuff up. From here on out, I am not going to link to any more Politico stories. This is not a newspaper, but the Drudge Report in print.
GOP Hopes Rises As Dems Hit Rough Patch
What is the evidence for this headline? According to the article, besides the Blagojevich scandal, Dems suffered bad losses in the Georgia Senate runoff, and the two House special elections in Louisiana last week. What. A. Load. Of. Garbage. Earth to Politico writers: LA-04 is an R+7 district, and Georgia is still Georgia, a state no one on earth ever reasonably expected to win. In terms of LA-02, the seat was lost because of Bill Jefferson's indictment, not because of a tarnished Democratic or Obama brand. The seat will flip back to the Democrats in two years -- you can bet your house on this. Incidentally, find me the people who argued that the Democratic win in TX-22 two years ago -- another political fluke -- was a sign that the GOP was in huge trouble. The fact that Politico is trying to kick up more dirt to bring down the Democrats one month after landslide wins is beyond pathetic.
Naturally, the other top pieces this morning are a smattering of other slanted "news":
Scandal, appointments give GOP hope
Transition site censors Blago questions
Dems rake cash from business
GOP may seek Bill Clinton's testimony
You really can't make this stuff up. From here on out, I am not going to link to any more Politico stories. This is not a newspaper, but the Drudge Report in print.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Bunning's Plans Should Concern GOP
Two-term Republican Senator Jim Bunning is reiterating that he intends to run for re-election in 2010. Whether he really means this, or it is just bluster remains to be seen until at least next year. However, the idea of Bunning running again should definitely concern Republican leadership. Let me say that if Jim Bunning runs again, and Democrats get a strong nominee (hello Ben Chandler), Bunning will be defeated.
Jim Bunning has lived somewhat of a charmed life. A former congressman, he won election to the Senate over fellow Rep. Scotty Baesler by a bare 50-49 margin in 1998. Six years later, facing an unfunded and unknown state senator named Dan Mongiardo, Bunning won 51-49, despite the fact that President Bush was carrying the state by 20 percentage points. Not to mention, prior to getting into politics, Bunning was a good major leaguer and he pitched a perfect game in 1964 which helped eventually propel him into the Hall of Fame despite his likely undeserving statistics.
During the 2004 campaign, Bunning exhibited very strange behavior. He referred to his opponent as looking like one of Saddam Hussein's sons. He claimed his wife was attacked at a picnic. And he refused to participate in person at the only debate, opting instead to appear by satellite from the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, where it appears that he was fed answers by a teleprompter. After Bunning survived (in no small measure to the DSCC foolishly refusing to send good money to the state while wasting it in places like Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina), it appeared to everyone his second term would be his last one.
Bunning does not see it that way. Despite the margins of his two Senate wins, and the tenor his last campaign, he, like many politicians who came before him, does not appear ready to relinquish his hold on power, even though he has clearly lost a lot of zip from his fastball. This is of course great news for Democrats, who surprisingly have a deep bench in Kentucky. Congressman Ben Chandler, State Auditor Crit Luallen, State Attorney Jack Conway, and others could all give Bunning a very stiff challenge. In fact, as I noted at the top, if Chandler gets in -- and I think he will -- Bunning will be history if he stays.
The biggest question, then, is if Bunning really will run again. Right now, he has basically no money in his account for a campaign that will be very costly. This doesn't mean he won't run again, but it is one sign. He is also 79, and clearly not in the best health, if 2004 demonstrated anything. Personally, I'd say it is 50-50 he runs again. At his age, clearly he wants to make the race, much like Arlen Specter, but desire and ability are two separate things. We'll see what happens, but the GOP should be hoping that he opts for retirement so they can run someone like Secretary of State Trey Grayson.
Jim Bunning has lived somewhat of a charmed life. A former congressman, he won election to the Senate over fellow Rep. Scotty Baesler by a bare 50-49 margin in 1998. Six years later, facing an unfunded and unknown state senator named Dan Mongiardo, Bunning won 51-49, despite the fact that President Bush was carrying the state by 20 percentage points. Not to mention, prior to getting into politics, Bunning was a good major leaguer and he pitched a perfect game in 1964 which helped eventually propel him into the Hall of Fame despite his likely undeserving statistics.
During the 2004 campaign, Bunning exhibited very strange behavior. He referred to his opponent as looking like one of Saddam Hussein's sons. He claimed his wife was attacked at a picnic. And he refused to participate in person at the only debate, opting instead to appear by satellite from the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, where it appears that he was fed answers by a teleprompter. After Bunning survived (in no small measure to the DSCC foolishly refusing to send good money to the state while wasting it in places like Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina), it appeared to everyone his second term would be his last one.
Bunning does not see it that way. Despite the margins of his two Senate wins, and the tenor his last campaign, he, like many politicians who came before him, does not appear ready to relinquish his hold on power, even though he has clearly lost a lot of zip from his fastball. This is of course great news for Democrats, who surprisingly have a deep bench in Kentucky. Congressman Ben Chandler, State Auditor Crit Luallen, State Attorney Jack Conway, and others could all give Bunning a very stiff challenge. In fact, as I noted at the top, if Chandler gets in -- and I think he will -- Bunning will be history if he stays.
The biggest question, then, is if Bunning really will run again. Right now, he has basically no money in his account for a campaign that will be very costly. This doesn't mean he won't run again, but it is one sign. He is also 79, and clearly not in the best health, if 2004 demonstrated anything. Personally, I'd say it is 50-50 he runs again. At his age, clearly he wants to make the race, much like Arlen Specter, but desire and ability are two separate things. We'll see what happens, but the GOP should be hoping that he opts for retirement so they can run someone like Secretary of State Trey Grayson.
Politico's Big Day
The people at Politico must have been salivating yesterday. After all, the Blagojevich scandal gives them ample opportunity to try to tarnish Barack Obama and Democrats in order to make a name for their publication. Here are the top headlines this morning on the webpage:
In Scandal, Risks for Obama
Scandal Tests Obama
Blago has been scheming for years
Republicans could win Obama seat
Aide: Axelrod 'misspoke'
And none of this even includes some other great hits from earlier this week, such as the priceless Liberals voice concerns about Obama, the typical Politico-style piece trying to sow discontent among Democrats with Obama.
Upon some further reflection do I think that Politico's editors are biased against Democrats? Probably not, though that label certain applies to some its "news" writers like Jonathan Martin. I really believe that Politico, the new kid on the block in the Capitol Hill news gang, is simply desperate to create a name for itself. As a result, it is willing to basically say anything, and blur the line between news and opinion. I think Politico should reconsider this strategy before more people begin to take it less seriously.
In Scandal, Risks for Obama
Scandal Tests Obama
Blago has been scheming for years
Republicans could win Obama seat
Aide: Axelrod 'misspoke'
And none of this even includes some other great hits from earlier this week, such as the priceless Liberals voice concerns about Obama, the typical Politico-style piece trying to sow discontent among Democrats with Obama.
Upon some further reflection do I think that Politico's editors are biased against Democrats? Probably not, though that label certain applies to some its "news" writers like Jonathan Martin. I really believe that Politico, the new kid on the block in the Capitol Hill news gang, is simply desperate to create a name for itself. As a result, it is willing to basically say anything, and blur the line between news and opinion. I think Politico should reconsider this strategy before more people begin to take it less seriously.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
A Word on Jindal's Savvy
A sharp friend of mine noted to me that my post blaming Bobby Jindal for the Dems' losses in LA-02 and especially LA-04 was a bit off the mark. Thinking about it, I agree with her point, though on a limited ground. Let me be clear in saying that if I were Jindal, I would have done the exact same thing. Politics is a contact sport, and he made a move to benefit his party. As it turned out, his changing the date of the election worked perfectly to the Republican Party's gain. I personally may not like the end result, but I absolutely respect Jindal's savvy. Heck, I am a guy who while attacking his motives, praised the political guts and astonishing gumption of Gov. Haley Barbour when he moved the Roger Wicker-Ronnie Musgrove special election to the bottom on the ballot for no apparent reason other than that he wanted to help water-down black support of Musgrove.
That being said, while I surely give a tip of political cap to Jindal, I still believe his move of the election cost Democrats the Fourth District, as higher black turnout on November 4 would have basically assured Paul Carmouche's victory (as he lost the December special by 356 votes). In terms of the Second, Bill Jefferson would have won easily had his race been November 4, and he was killed by low turnout, but only he is to blame for the corruption problems that put him in such a precarious position in the first place.
That being said, while I surely give a tip of political cap to Jindal, I still believe his move of the election cost Democrats the Fourth District, as higher black turnout on November 4 would have basically assured Paul Carmouche's victory (as he lost the December special by 356 votes). In terms of the Second, Bill Jefferson would have won easily had his race been November 4, and he was killed by low turnout, but only he is to blame for the corruption problems that put him in such a precarious position in the first place.
Bad Idea
In the aftermath of the Blagojevich bombshell, several Democrats are typically overreacting with a potentially bad idea. Senator Dick Durbin has called for the Illinois state legislature to strip the Senate appointment power from the governor, and allow for a special election to fill Barack Obama's now-open seat. Such a move, if executed, could possibly cost Democrats the seat.
Right now Illinois voters are likely very angry both at Democrats, and at Chicago politics. If there were a special election, anything would be possible. A special election would be a free-shot for sitting congressmen, so we could expect a free-for-all between numerous ambitious pols. In my view, a worst-case scenario for Democrats would be if someone like ultra-liberal Chicago Reps. Jesse Jackson Junior or Danny Davis were to win the Democratic special primary. If someone like Mark Kirk were to run as a Republican, he could well beat either way. Reps like Davis and Jackson are way too liberal. That, combined with the anti-Chicago sentiment now blowing through the state and a potentially quality candidate from the Republicans could be enough to turn the seat.
If I was adivising Mark Kirk, I would tell him to get into a special election. He is moderate, very popular in his Democratic district (he just won re-election overwhelmingly in a year when Obama was on the top of the Democratic ballot), and he can raise big money. A Kirk-Jackson match-up in early 2009 would cause some heartburn for Dems.
Look, I realize all of this is unlikely. A special election would cost tens of millions of dollars, and it would take action on the part of both houses of the legislature. We all know government moves slowly, even in times of crisis like this. I don't expect the state to make this change. Furthermore, the Illinois GOP is in shambles today, and their bench is almost empty. Someone like Kirk may not even want to run.
But I do think that the extended discussion of the move by Democrats is an overreaction we've come to expect from politicians incapable of thinking ahead. If they are wise, proponents of a special election will come to their senses, and allow an appointment, likely by the governor's successor. In that case, the appointed individual -- hopefully of good quality -- can strengthen him or herself for two years, by which time the public has gotten a bit over this mess. Allowing for a special would be a big political mistake, even in a blue state like Illinois.
Right now Illinois voters are likely very angry both at Democrats, and at Chicago politics. If there were a special election, anything would be possible. A special election would be a free-shot for sitting congressmen, so we could expect a free-for-all between numerous ambitious pols. In my view, a worst-case scenario for Democrats would be if someone like ultra-liberal Chicago Reps. Jesse Jackson Junior or Danny Davis were to win the Democratic special primary. If someone like Mark Kirk were to run as a Republican, he could well beat either way. Reps like Davis and Jackson are way too liberal. That, combined with the anti-Chicago sentiment now blowing through the state and a potentially quality candidate from the Republicans could be enough to turn the seat.
If I was adivising Mark Kirk, I would tell him to get into a special election. He is moderate, very popular in his Democratic district (he just won re-election overwhelmingly in a year when Obama was on the top of the Democratic ballot), and he can raise big money. A Kirk-Jackson match-up in early 2009 would cause some heartburn for Dems.
Look, I realize all of this is unlikely. A special election would cost tens of millions of dollars, and it would take action on the part of both houses of the legislature. We all know government moves slowly, even in times of crisis like this. I don't expect the state to make this change. Furthermore, the Illinois GOP is in shambles today, and their bench is almost empty. Someone like Kirk may not even want to run.
But I do think that the extended discussion of the move by Democrats is an overreaction we've come to expect from politicians incapable of thinking ahead. If they are wise, proponents of a special election will come to their senses, and allow an appointment, likely by the governor's successor. In that case, the appointed individual -- hopefully of good quality -- can strengthen him or herself for two years, by which time the public has gotten a bit over this mess. Allowing for a special would be a big political mistake, even in a blue state like Illinois.
What Will Obama Do With Patrick Fitzgerald?
Many, many issues coming out of today's bombshell indictment of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on charges that he tried to sell Barack Obama's old Senate seat to the highest bidder in order to enrich himself. We're going to try to cover some of the more interesting stories coming out of this, at least as we see.
One topic that I think is really interesting is what will happen to Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is the sitting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and as many of you know, he was the special counsel in charge of the Plamegate matter which resulted in the conviction of former Dick Cheney Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Fitzgerald has obtained scores of convictions in his post as USA, and is well-established as an Eliot Ness-type figure. In the process, he has become a nationally-known figure. This case will only increase that stature.
Why is any of this important? Well, it is because Fitzgerald's post comes up in just a few weeks. United States Attorneys are presidential appointments, and generally at the end of an administration, every one of them is not renewed in his her post, just like all key executive branch appointments. Sure, they are some holdovers, but the overwhelming majority are not brought back for obvious political reasons. They are not technically fired, but in a way these types of appointees are fired.
This begs the question of what will happen to Fitzgerald. On the one hand, like every other major political appointee in the Bush administration, Fitzgerald should be a goner. However, on the other hand he is just beginning one of the most important corruption cases in some time. It is not every day that a sitting governor is charged in an incredibly juicy indictment like the one present in this case. Therefore, it might be better politically for the incoming administration if Fitzgerald were retained in his post. More importantly, were he forced from his job next month, Obama could be attacked for making a political move in order to protect Blagojevich.
Obama is in a very sticky situation. In just about any other situation, he would be able to replace Fitzgerald and no one would notice or care. It happens every four or eight years. But this is different. It involves a major case, and it is right in Obama's homestate. Plus, while Fitzgerald was appointed by Bush, he is not a Republican, and he has few friends in the GOP with his prosecution of Scooter Libby. In fact, Fitzgerald was appointed to help clean up Chicago at the urging of Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, one of Obama's closest political confidants.
I have no doubt that Obama will face some pressure from powerful figures back in Illinois to oust Fitzgerald. Men like Mayor Daley and others are probably terrified right now: Fitzgerald is relentless, and who knows what figures he could target going forward. Clearly, he has no problem indicting powerful people in either party.
My inital instinct was that it would be politically wise for Obama not to reappoint Fitzgerald. My reasons for this were that Fitzgerald would be totally his own man (as he should be, but we're talking about politics here), and potentially uncontrollable in terms of dictating his actions from Washington. Additionally, while Obama would encounter some initial fallout, all of that would be nothing compared to having to deal with Fitzgerald for another eight years, as any reappointment would let him sit in the job for as long as he wanted.
However, I have changed my mind. I think the fallout would probably be too great and not worth it. With all of the howling that came out when the Alberto Gonzales Justice Department tried to replace so many U.S. Attorneys, I am sure Obama not bringing back Fitzgerald would cause huge issues he would want to avoid. (I realize the Bush firings were different as they were his own USAs while Fitzgerald is not an Obama appointee, but I don't think the media or the public would appreciate this distinction). And if the Obama administration is even considering this issue, if I were a shrewd Republican, I would call on Obama to reappoint Fitzgerald, and perhaps bring it up during confirmation hearings for incoming Attorney General Eric Holder. Now that would be smart.
In the end, though, I see Obama bringing Fitzgerald back. It makes the most sense. He and some of his political allies may be uneasy about it, but I think Obama may be stuck with Patrick Fitzgerald for the long-haul. When Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby, Democrats rejoiced and praised him with Republicans cursed his name. We may see a reversal of fortunes in the future.
One topic that I think is really interesting is what will happen to Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is the sitting United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and as many of you know, he was the special counsel in charge of the Plamegate matter which resulted in the conviction of former Dick Cheney Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Fitzgerald has obtained scores of convictions in his post as USA, and is well-established as an Eliot Ness-type figure. In the process, he has become a nationally-known figure. This case will only increase that stature.
Why is any of this important? Well, it is because Fitzgerald's post comes up in just a few weeks. United States Attorneys are presidential appointments, and generally at the end of an administration, every one of them is not renewed in his her post, just like all key executive branch appointments. Sure, they are some holdovers, but the overwhelming majority are not brought back for obvious political reasons. They are not technically fired, but in a way these types of appointees are fired.
This begs the question of what will happen to Fitzgerald. On the one hand, like every other major political appointee in the Bush administration, Fitzgerald should be a goner. However, on the other hand he is just beginning one of the most important corruption cases in some time. It is not every day that a sitting governor is charged in an incredibly juicy indictment like the one present in this case. Therefore, it might be better politically for the incoming administration if Fitzgerald were retained in his post. More importantly, were he forced from his job next month, Obama could be attacked for making a political move in order to protect Blagojevich.
Obama is in a very sticky situation. In just about any other situation, he would be able to replace Fitzgerald and no one would notice or care. It happens every four or eight years. But this is different. It involves a major case, and it is right in Obama's homestate. Plus, while Fitzgerald was appointed by Bush, he is not a Republican, and he has few friends in the GOP with his prosecution of Scooter Libby. In fact, Fitzgerald was appointed to help clean up Chicago at the urging of Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, one of Obama's closest political confidants.
I have no doubt that Obama will face some pressure from powerful figures back in Illinois to oust Fitzgerald. Men like Mayor Daley and others are probably terrified right now: Fitzgerald is relentless, and who knows what figures he could target going forward. Clearly, he has no problem indicting powerful people in either party.
My inital instinct was that it would be politically wise for Obama not to reappoint Fitzgerald. My reasons for this were that Fitzgerald would be totally his own man (as he should be, but we're talking about politics here), and potentially uncontrollable in terms of dictating his actions from Washington. Additionally, while Obama would encounter some initial fallout, all of that would be nothing compared to having to deal with Fitzgerald for another eight years, as any reappointment would let him sit in the job for as long as he wanted.
However, I have changed my mind. I think the fallout would probably be too great and not worth it. With all of the howling that came out when the Alberto Gonzales Justice Department tried to replace so many U.S. Attorneys, I am sure Obama not bringing back Fitzgerald would cause huge issues he would want to avoid. (I realize the Bush firings were different as they were his own USAs while Fitzgerald is not an Obama appointee, but I don't think the media or the public would appreciate this distinction). And if the Obama administration is even considering this issue, if I were a shrewd Republican, I would call on Obama to reappoint Fitzgerald, and perhaps bring it up during confirmation hearings for incoming Attorney General Eric Holder. Now that would be smart.
In the end, though, I see Obama bringing Fitzgerald back. It makes the most sense. He and some of his political allies may be uneasy about it, but I think Obama may be stuck with Patrick Fitzgerald for the long-haul. When Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby, Democrats rejoiced and praised him with Republicans cursed his name. We may see a reversal of fortunes in the future.
Monday, December 8, 2008
David Gregory: The Expected, But Nonetheless Mediocre Choice
When Tim Russert suddenly passed away, I exchanged some emails with friends on his likely replacement. At the time, I had little doubt who it would be: David Gregory. This is not because I have any smart insight, but because I believed at the time that Gregory was the safest choice for NBC network suits, and as a result, his selection was almost a foregone conclusion. When his hiring as the host of Meet the Press was made official this week, it should have shocked no one. That being said, just because Gregory was the obvious choice does not mean he was a good choice.
The elevation of Gregory to the head of the storied Sunday morning talk show can be explained in one word: gravitas; or perhaps two words: perceived gravitas. David Gregory looks every bit the part of a serious journalist and newsman. He's covered politics and the White House for a major network for some time. He has been a notable jouster with President Bush at numerous press conferences. With his gray and white hair (but not advanced age; he's just 38) he looks like a serious, important political person. Heck, even his name, "David Gregory", sounds esteemed. And make no mistake, all of these factors were critical in his selection.
NBC has a lot of pride in Meet the Press. It likes to tout it as not only the highest-rated news program on Sunday morning, but perhaps the most influential news show in all media. Every Sunday, its rich political history is highlighted once more so we can all bask in the heady position the show has enjoyed for decades. In other words, NBC likes to remind us all how important and relevant the show is. That's all well and good, and I can readily acknowledge that Meet the Press has been popular for some time. Given the high regard NBC holds for ones its signature products, Gregory was the natural heir when Russert passed on. After all, he has the gravitas that NBC thinks befits the show.
However, I for one think it was a mediocre, uninspired choice. Remind me again why Meet the Press has been so popular in recent years? Oh yeah, it was Tim Russert, and Russert was anything but the stuffy scribe that I think Gregory embodies. Russert was not of Washington, a fact he liked to highlight proudly every single show. He was from Buffalo, and in the field of politics, he embodied unique character and a regular person more than anyone else around. His friendly, boisterous personality coupled with his unassuming manner made him beloved by many people, and his impeccable work and tough-but-fair and always respectful questioning of participants on his show earned him near-universal respect. Really, Russert was simply a political junkie and he covered politics in a way that made you realize that right away. And nothing seemed contrived.
Russert was successful precisely because he was not someone like David Gregory or others like him; in many ways, he was the exact opposite. And if NBC's corporate suits think that Gregory can tap into Russert's success even a little bit, they're nuts. Any continued success of Meet the Press will be based solely on its brand, until proven otherwise. People watched Russert, listened to him, and respected him because he was so different from endless litany of boring, phony, carbon-copy hosts and pundits you can catch on any other channel at basically any time of day, seven days a week droning on about politics.
I realize that someone like Russert is irreplaceable, and I am not suggesting that NBC should have based its search for a new host on finding the new Russert (though, I don't there was ever a search as I think Gregory was the choice for the job immediately). Such a thing would have been impossible and foolish. What I am suggesting is that in deciding a new host, NBC should have better considered why Russert made Meet the Press so successful, and in turn influential. He was liked because he was real and because he was different from the other indistinguishable rabble.
Was there a clearly better choice out there than David Gregory? I am not positive, but I think the answer is 'probably.' Personally, I would have tapped Chuck Todd for the job. Todd, NBC's political director made his bones as the head of the Hotline, the well known daily (and incredibly exhaustive) politics broadsheet that is read on Capitol Hill and by politics junkies everywhere. Anyway who has ever worked for Hotline is an unquestioned junkie, and if you've watched Todd, you know he is too, in much the same way Russert was, though minus the latter's personal and sunny exuberance. And also like Russert, Todd has never been a White House reporter, which was a knock invoked against him. However, I think that attack was silly since Todd has been on tv about 10 billion times in his life as an analyst, and I don't think him being in front of a camera was a big deal.
Of course, Todd did not get the job because he doesn't have Gregory's perceived gravitas. Todd does not look like the man who should be hosting the self-described gold standard of political journalism. He has red hair and a goatee, he's kind of chubby, and has a boyish appearance. All stark contrasts to Gregory and others. Also, in fairness, he is not as off-the-cuff and capable of fresh witty banter as Russert was; though to be equally fair, I've never seen any indication that Gregory is capable of showing that side. But again, Gregory is all about outward appearances, and that's why I think he was picked. Tell me: did Tim Russert look like he should have been hosting Meet the Press?
I'm sure part of me wants to duplicate Russert in some way, even though that's impossible. You can't recreate perfectly things like that. All I know is that Todd would have been an interesting choice, and David Gregory is a mediocre choice, no matter what the ratings tell me later. Gregory was just the safe choice to corporate suits who don't like to be different. That's a shame, because starting soon, Meet the Press will be like all the other political talk shows.
The elevation of Gregory to the head of the storied Sunday morning talk show can be explained in one word: gravitas; or perhaps two words: perceived gravitas. David Gregory looks every bit the part of a serious journalist and newsman. He's covered politics and the White House for a major network for some time. He has been a notable jouster with President Bush at numerous press conferences. With his gray and white hair (but not advanced age; he's just 38) he looks like a serious, important political person. Heck, even his name, "David Gregory", sounds esteemed. And make no mistake, all of these factors were critical in his selection.
NBC has a lot of pride in Meet the Press. It likes to tout it as not only the highest-rated news program on Sunday morning, but perhaps the most influential news show in all media. Every Sunday, its rich political history is highlighted once more so we can all bask in the heady position the show has enjoyed for decades. In other words, NBC likes to remind us all how important and relevant the show is. That's all well and good, and I can readily acknowledge that Meet the Press has been popular for some time. Given the high regard NBC holds for ones its signature products, Gregory was the natural heir when Russert passed on. After all, he has the gravitas that NBC thinks befits the show.
However, I for one think it was a mediocre, uninspired choice. Remind me again why Meet the Press has been so popular in recent years? Oh yeah, it was Tim Russert, and Russert was anything but the stuffy scribe that I think Gregory embodies. Russert was not of Washington, a fact he liked to highlight proudly every single show. He was from Buffalo, and in the field of politics, he embodied unique character and a regular person more than anyone else around. His friendly, boisterous personality coupled with his unassuming manner made him beloved by many people, and his impeccable work and tough-but-fair and always respectful questioning of participants on his show earned him near-universal respect. Really, Russert was simply a political junkie and he covered politics in a way that made you realize that right away. And nothing seemed contrived.
Russert was successful precisely because he was not someone like David Gregory or others like him; in many ways, he was the exact opposite. And if NBC's corporate suits think that Gregory can tap into Russert's success even a little bit, they're nuts. Any continued success of Meet the Press will be based solely on its brand, until proven otherwise. People watched Russert, listened to him, and respected him because he was so different from endless litany of boring, phony, carbon-copy hosts and pundits you can catch on any other channel at basically any time of day, seven days a week droning on about politics.
I realize that someone like Russert is irreplaceable, and I am not suggesting that NBC should have based its search for a new host on finding the new Russert (though, I don't there was ever a search as I think Gregory was the choice for the job immediately). Such a thing would have been impossible and foolish. What I am suggesting is that in deciding a new host, NBC should have better considered why Russert made Meet the Press so successful, and in turn influential. He was liked because he was real and because he was different from the other indistinguishable rabble.
Was there a clearly better choice out there than David Gregory? I am not positive, but I think the answer is 'probably.' Personally, I would have tapped Chuck Todd for the job. Todd, NBC's political director made his bones as the head of the Hotline, the well known daily (and incredibly exhaustive) politics broadsheet that is read on Capitol Hill and by politics junkies everywhere. Anyway who has ever worked for Hotline is an unquestioned junkie, and if you've watched Todd, you know he is too, in much the same way Russert was, though minus the latter's personal and sunny exuberance. And also like Russert, Todd has never been a White House reporter, which was a knock invoked against him. However, I think that attack was silly since Todd has been on tv about 10 billion times in his life as an analyst, and I don't think him being in front of a camera was a big deal.
Of course, Todd did not get the job because he doesn't have Gregory's perceived gravitas. Todd does not look like the man who should be hosting the self-described gold standard of political journalism. He has red hair and a goatee, he's kind of chubby, and has a boyish appearance. All stark contrasts to Gregory and others. Also, in fairness, he is not as off-the-cuff and capable of fresh witty banter as Russert was; though to be equally fair, I've never seen any indication that Gregory is capable of showing that side. But again, Gregory is all about outward appearances, and that's why I think he was picked. Tell me: did Tim Russert look like he should have been hosting Meet the Press?
I'm sure part of me wants to duplicate Russert in some way, even though that's impossible. You can't recreate perfectly things like that. All I know is that Todd would have been an interesting choice, and David Gregory is a mediocre choice, no matter what the ratings tell me later. Gregory was just the safe choice to corporate suits who don't like to be different. That's a shame, because starting soon, Meet the Press will be like all the other political talk shows.
Louisiana
I wanted to comment on the two Louisiana House races from Saturday. It was not a great day for Democrats, but they can thank Bobby Jindal for that. In the Fourth District, the GOP nominee, John Fleming, appears to have won by 356 votes, or 0.3% over outgoing Caddo Parrish District Attorney Paul Carmouche. In an R+7 district, this was a tough loss for Democrats, as Carmouche was a very strong nominee who was well known in the district.
In the Second District, Republican nominee Joseph Coe (pronounced "gow") shockingly ousted longtime Democratic Representative William Jefferson, who had held the seat for nearly 20 years. For those who have forgotten, Jefferson has been under federal indictment for the last couple of years, and he gained some (likely unwanted) notoriety when authorities found wads of cash in his freezer. Nonetheless, he was re-elected two years ago.
So what happened in these two races? Simple: because these were special elections, turnout was pitifully low, particularly among black voters, the most vital Democratic base in a state like Louisiana. With the big race happening on November 4, these contests were simply ignored, and this killed Dems in both.
What does this have to do with Governor Bobby Jindal? Well, if you remember, when Hurricane Gustav was bearing down on Louisiana the week of the GOP convention, he ordered that the primary runoffs be moved. Consequently, the runoffs were moved to November 4, and the general contests were moved to December 6.
Make no mistake: the move was purely political, and aimed solely at Paul Carmouche. Jindal and other Republicans realized Carmouche would have been able to win on November 4, aided by huge black turnout for Obama. Creating a special contest in December almost guaranteed terrible turnout, and in a strong Republican district, that's a death sentence for a Democrat. It is a shame for Democrats, because Carmouche was the type of Dem who could have held the seat for a decade, but that's politics, and I can't say I would have done it any differently if I was Jindal.
And let me add that I am not trying to downplay the significance of a hurricane, especially in a place like Louisiana. I have no doubt that Jindal only wants to protect his state and its citizens. That being said, I also have zero doubt that being able to move the general election for the Fourth District was also squarely in Jindal's mind, and a major consideration. So for anyone who would be offended by my arguing that Jindal had political motives in moving the contests, wake up and smell the coffee.
In terms of the Second, this is not a GOP district. In fact, it is the only Dem-leaning district in the state because it was gerrymandered to be the state's majority black district. Centered around New Orleans, the Second is PVI D+28. To give you some context for that, the reddest district Dems currently control is R+18. Prior to Saturday, the bluest district a GOPer currently held in Congress was D+7. In other words, this is not a district the GOP should ever win in its wildest dreams, and there is absolutely no chance the Republicans can hold it in two years.
In fact, if I was Mr. Coe's advisor, I would have a simple piece of advice for him: switch parties today and then go to the Democratic leadership and beg them to accept you. Plead. Coe cannot win re-election in two years. It's impossible. What he can do is switch parties. While I think he would lose there too -- he would almost certainly be felled in a primary by a black candidate in a district that is almost two-thirds black -- at least he would have a chance. Perhaps he can survive in similar fashion to Rep. Steve Cohen. Cohen, if you remember ran as the only credible white candidate in a large Democratic field of black candidates for Tennessee's Ninth District, which is based in Memphis. However, the difference there was that (1) Cohen was a true -- and liberal -- Democrat; and (2) Cohen had been a state senator from the area for 20 years and was thus well known in the community whereas Coe has negligible ties in New Orleans.
Indeed, if Coe switched parties tomorrow and was accepted into the caucus with open arms, in two years the DCCC would not give Coe a nickel. Why would it spend money in a safe seat that it knows will flip back anyway? Plus, the DCCC and many Democrats would assuredly feel pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus and black leaders in New Orleans to return the seat to a black representative. In other words, Coe is [bleeped]. Do I expect him to even try to switch parties? Absolutely not, because such a move would show political foresight, and I wouldn't expect a political fluke to have those kinds of instincts.
By the way, there is zero chance the Democrats would ever approach Coe to switch. The CBC would be livid if leadership backed a Vietnamese guy over any black candidate. I am not saying that is right, but that is how the group would react. A lot of black members backed Steve Cohen's primary opponent this year for heaven's sakes, and again, Cohen had ties in Memphis and TN-09 is not even as Democratic as LA-02. Black national leadership would not stand for any institutional support of Coe -- a man who has never been a registered Democrat anyway -- and this is a fight Pelosi would want no part of, considering she already had a battle when she kicked Jefferson off of Ways and Means and another one when she denied Alcee Hastings the Intelligence chairmanship. Facing the possibility of having to boot Rangel, this is a fight she won't touch with a ten-foot pole.
Interestingly, I actually think Democratic leaders are today pretty delighted with the stunning results in LA-02. For years, Jefferson has been a thorn in their side, as he has refused to resign in the face of a damning federal indictment, and he even refused to quit his post on the powerful Ways and Means Committee; he was ultimately removed in a move that angered the CBC. While Republicans like Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom Feeney, Don Young (and a cast of thousands) have come under scrutiny or indictment, Jefferson has represented the worst of Democratic corruption, and has somewhat undercut the party's ability to attack Republicans for ethical lapses. Jefferson's amazing ability to win re-election two years ago -- not to mention a primary challenge -- infuriated Democrats, and after he won his primary this year, they were resigned to having him in the House for two more years.
Really, for this reason, Jefferson's defeat is actually a very good series of events for Democrats. The worst thing possible for the majority side would have been to have had Jefferson in the House when he was convicted. And given his intransigence so far, I figure he would have stayed until the bitter end, after a conviction up until the word "expulsion" was seriously invoked. Jefferson's defeat now removes the possibility of that bad publicity hitting the Capitol at an inopportune time. It is one thing to have a scandal like this in 2005 or even 2007, but in 2009 or 2010, something like this would be imputed to both Democratic majorities in Congress and to the White House, where a Democrat will be. For this reason, it is easy to see why Jefferson losing Saturday was a good thing for Dems.
Sure, watching a Republican hold such a liberal seat is annoying for Democrats, but Dems know it will be theirs again in two years. And that extra win will even help the DCCC pad its numbers the morning after in 2010 when seats almost certainly will be lost in aggregate. The party should be much more upset about the Fourth District, as that was a GOP seat that was just red enough that Carmouche could have stolen it for them for the long haul.
In the Second District, Republican nominee Joseph Coe (pronounced "gow") shockingly ousted longtime Democratic Representative William Jefferson, who had held the seat for nearly 20 years. For those who have forgotten, Jefferson has been under federal indictment for the last couple of years, and he gained some (likely unwanted) notoriety when authorities found wads of cash in his freezer. Nonetheless, he was re-elected two years ago.
So what happened in these two races? Simple: because these were special elections, turnout was pitifully low, particularly among black voters, the most vital Democratic base in a state like Louisiana. With the big race happening on November 4, these contests were simply ignored, and this killed Dems in both.
What does this have to do with Governor Bobby Jindal? Well, if you remember, when Hurricane Gustav was bearing down on Louisiana the week of the GOP convention, he ordered that the primary runoffs be moved. Consequently, the runoffs were moved to November 4, and the general contests were moved to December 6.
Make no mistake: the move was purely political, and aimed solely at Paul Carmouche. Jindal and other Republicans realized Carmouche would have been able to win on November 4, aided by huge black turnout for Obama. Creating a special contest in December almost guaranteed terrible turnout, and in a strong Republican district, that's a death sentence for a Democrat. It is a shame for Democrats, because Carmouche was the type of Dem who could have held the seat for a decade, but that's politics, and I can't say I would have done it any differently if I was Jindal.
And let me add that I am not trying to downplay the significance of a hurricane, especially in a place like Louisiana. I have no doubt that Jindal only wants to protect his state and its citizens. That being said, I also have zero doubt that being able to move the general election for the Fourth District was also squarely in Jindal's mind, and a major consideration. So for anyone who would be offended by my arguing that Jindal had political motives in moving the contests, wake up and smell the coffee.
In terms of the Second, this is not a GOP district. In fact, it is the only Dem-leaning district in the state because it was gerrymandered to be the state's majority black district. Centered around New Orleans, the Second is PVI D+28. To give you some context for that, the reddest district Dems currently control is R+18. Prior to Saturday, the bluest district a GOPer currently held in Congress was D+7. In other words, this is not a district the GOP should ever win in its wildest dreams, and there is absolutely no chance the Republicans can hold it in two years.
In fact, if I was Mr. Coe's advisor, I would have a simple piece of advice for him: switch parties today and then go to the Democratic leadership and beg them to accept you. Plead. Coe cannot win re-election in two years. It's impossible. What he can do is switch parties. While I think he would lose there too -- he would almost certainly be felled in a primary by a black candidate in a district that is almost two-thirds black -- at least he would have a chance. Perhaps he can survive in similar fashion to Rep. Steve Cohen. Cohen, if you remember ran as the only credible white candidate in a large Democratic field of black candidates for Tennessee's Ninth District, which is based in Memphis. However, the difference there was that (1) Cohen was a true -- and liberal -- Democrat; and (2) Cohen had been a state senator from the area for 20 years and was thus well known in the community whereas Coe has negligible ties in New Orleans.
Indeed, if Coe switched parties tomorrow and was accepted into the caucus with open arms, in two years the DCCC would not give Coe a nickel. Why would it spend money in a safe seat that it knows will flip back anyway? Plus, the DCCC and many Democrats would assuredly feel pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus and black leaders in New Orleans to return the seat to a black representative. In other words, Coe is [bleeped]. Do I expect him to even try to switch parties? Absolutely not, because such a move would show political foresight, and I wouldn't expect a political fluke to have those kinds of instincts.
By the way, there is zero chance the Democrats would ever approach Coe to switch. The CBC would be livid if leadership backed a Vietnamese guy over any black candidate. I am not saying that is right, but that is how the group would react. A lot of black members backed Steve Cohen's primary opponent this year for heaven's sakes, and again, Cohen had ties in Memphis and TN-09 is not even as Democratic as LA-02. Black national leadership would not stand for any institutional support of Coe -- a man who has never been a registered Democrat anyway -- and this is a fight Pelosi would want no part of, considering she already had a battle when she kicked Jefferson off of Ways and Means and another one when she denied Alcee Hastings the Intelligence chairmanship. Facing the possibility of having to boot Rangel, this is a fight she won't touch with a ten-foot pole.
Interestingly, I actually think Democratic leaders are today pretty delighted with the stunning results in LA-02. For years, Jefferson has been a thorn in their side, as he has refused to resign in the face of a damning federal indictment, and he even refused to quit his post on the powerful Ways and Means Committee; he was ultimately removed in a move that angered the CBC. While Republicans like Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom Feeney, Don Young (and a cast of thousands) have come under scrutiny or indictment, Jefferson has represented the worst of Democratic corruption, and has somewhat undercut the party's ability to attack Republicans for ethical lapses. Jefferson's amazing ability to win re-election two years ago -- not to mention a primary challenge -- infuriated Democrats, and after he won his primary this year, they were resigned to having him in the House for two more years.
Really, for this reason, Jefferson's defeat is actually a very good series of events for Democrats. The worst thing possible for the majority side would have been to have had Jefferson in the House when he was convicted. And given his intransigence so far, I figure he would have stayed until the bitter end, after a conviction up until the word "expulsion" was seriously invoked. Jefferson's defeat now removes the possibility of that bad publicity hitting the Capitol at an inopportune time. It is one thing to have a scandal like this in 2005 or even 2007, but in 2009 or 2010, something like this would be imputed to both Democratic majorities in Congress and to the White House, where a Democrat will be. For this reason, it is easy to see why Jefferson losing Saturday was a good thing for Dems.
Sure, watching a Republican hold such a liberal seat is annoying for Democrats, but Dems know it will be theirs again in two years. And that extra win will even help the DCCC pad its numbers the morning after in 2010 when seats almost certainly will be lost in aggregate. The party should be much more upset about the Fourth District, as that was a GOP seat that was just red enough that Carmouche could have stolen it for them for the long haul.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
This Is Classic
When I saw this story, I just had to comment. Fearful of a challenge from Alaska's governor, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is publicly speaking out against the governor running against her in a primary when her seat comes up in 2010:
“I can guarantee it would be a very tough election,” Murkowski said in an interview.[...]
“If she wants to be president, I don’t think the way to the presidency is a short stop in the United States Senate,” Murkowski said.[...]
“One thing that Alaskans clearly appreciate is seniority,” said Murkowski, who was appointed to the Senate in 2002 by her father, who had just won the governor’s race. “If she were to kind of move me over, if you will, to run for national office again at the expense at this seniority that’s been built, I don’t know if Alaskans would look too favorably on that.
The reasons behind Murkowski's concerns are obvious: while Lisa is a shoo-in for re-election over any Democrat in two years, the governor would have an excellent chance of toppling her in a primary. Additionally, that Murkowski would have negative feelings for the governor is not surprising considering the governor ousted her dad in a 2006 primary on the way to being elected in her own right. Sure, during the presidential contest Murkowski said and did all the right things about how she loved the governor and was supporting her. But we all know that was nonsense. What is really telling here is that Murkowski would make this statements publicly. To me, they show tremendous fear by the incumbent senator.
I have one response to this: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
Really, this story is one that involes no heroes and no victims, but two scoundrels who may just deserve each other. In one corner is Murkowski, who was appointed to the seat by her father, after he left the Senate to become governor. She was narrowly elected in her own right in great part because John Kerry's name on the ballot deep-sixed her opponent. The idea of her being ousted by someone even less qualified in a primary would drip of delicious irony and poetic justice.
In the other corner sits Alaska's governor, who is clearly less qualified for the job. Were she to primary challenge Murkowski, it would be for one reason and one reason alone: to give the governor a national platform and a bigger profile for a presidential run. And these ambitions would be completely naked. Any pretext of the move being done for Alaska's benefit would be utter garbage, and rational people would know right off the bat. Not that Alasakans would care, and neither would the governor.
Who would win this battle, the princess who was given the seat by her daddy, or Alaska's grossly unqualified political queen? Hard to say with the contest nearly two years away. That's five lifetimes in politics. My gut tells me that the governor would end up winning. While both ladies are popular in the state, this would be a GOP primary, and thus dominated by the state's most conservative voters, the very same people who made up a huge part of the 48% Ted Stevens got and the 50% Don Young got last month. Because the governor is much more conservative than Murkowski (a point the article makes), the governor would enjoy a strong advantage.
From a strategic standpoint, I wonder if going to the Senate would be the right move for the governor. There's no question that Washington would give the govenor more noteriety than Juneau. However, were the governor to run and win, she would get to Washington in January 2011, one year before the 2012 election the governor would clearly have her eye on. Spending mere months in the Senate before running (and she would have to announce a run sometime in 2011) would likely not grant the governor the perception of enough experience in national (and international) issues (much less true experience; though we all know the perception is what will matter). Plus, making a second run in 2012, would smack of political opportunism that will be impossible to adequately shield from criticism. Oh well. If it happens, I won't be surprised, and neither should you. Still, the whole storyline is hilarious.
Regardless of whether the governor does run, we can be assured of one thing: if she believes it will help her career, she will challenge Murkowski, regardless of whether such a move would be good for Alaska or opposed by scores of other people. Ivan Moore, Alaska's respected political pollster said it best:
“Sarah is interested in what is best for Sarah, and she is not necessarily going to get sidetracked by party loyalties,” Moore said.
“I can guarantee it would be a very tough election,” Murkowski said in an interview.[...]
“If she wants to be president, I don’t think the way to the presidency is a short stop in the United States Senate,” Murkowski said.[...]
“One thing that Alaskans clearly appreciate is seniority,” said Murkowski, who was appointed to the Senate in 2002 by her father, who had just won the governor’s race. “If she were to kind of move me over, if you will, to run for national office again at the expense at this seniority that’s been built, I don’t know if Alaskans would look too favorably on that.
The reasons behind Murkowski's concerns are obvious: while Lisa is a shoo-in for re-election over any Democrat in two years, the governor would have an excellent chance of toppling her in a primary. Additionally, that Murkowski would have negative feelings for the governor is not surprising considering the governor ousted her dad in a 2006 primary on the way to being elected in her own right. Sure, during the presidential contest Murkowski said and did all the right things about how she loved the governor and was supporting her. But we all know that was nonsense. What is really telling here is that Murkowski would make this statements publicly. To me, they show tremendous fear by the incumbent senator.
I have one response to this: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
Really, this story is one that involes no heroes and no victims, but two scoundrels who may just deserve each other. In one corner is Murkowski, who was appointed to the seat by her father, after he left the Senate to become governor. She was narrowly elected in her own right in great part because John Kerry's name on the ballot deep-sixed her opponent. The idea of her being ousted by someone even less qualified in a primary would drip of delicious irony and poetic justice.
In the other corner sits Alaska's governor, who is clearly less qualified for the job. Were she to primary challenge Murkowski, it would be for one reason and one reason alone: to give the governor a national platform and a bigger profile for a presidential run. And these ambitions would be completely naked. Any pretext of the move being done for Alaska's benefit would be utter garbage, and rational people would know right off the bat. Not that Alasakans would care, and neither would the governor.
Who would win this battle, the princess who was given the seat by her daddy, or Alaska's grossly unqualified political queen? Hard to say with the contest nearly two years away. That's five lifetimes in politics. My gut tells me that the governor would end up winning. While both ladies are popular in the state, this would be a GOP primary, and thus dominated by the state's most conservative voters, the very same people who made up a huge part of the 48% Ted Stevens got and the 50% Don Young got last month. Because the governor is much more conservative than Murkowski (a point the article makes), the governor would enjoy a strong advantage.
From a strategic standpoint, I wonder if going to the Senate would be the right move for the governor. There's no question that Washington would give the govenor more noteriety than Juneau. However, were the governor to run and win, she would get to Washington in January 2011, one year before the 2012 election the governor would clearly have her eye on. Spending mere months in the Senate before running (and she would have to announce a run sometime in 2011) would likely not grant the governor the perception of enough experience in national (and international) issues (much less true experience; though we all know the perception is what will matter). Plus, making a second run in 2012, would smack of political opportunism that will be impossible to adequately shield from criticism. Oh well. If it happens, I won't be surprised, and neither should you. Still, the whole storyline is hilarious.
Regardless of whether the governor does run, we can be assured of one thing: if she believes it will help her career, she will challenge Murkowski, regardless of whether such a move would be good for Alaska or opposed by scores of other people. Ivan Moore, Alaska's respected political pollster said it best:
“Sarah is interested in what is best for Sarah, and she is not necessarily going to get sidetracked by party loyalties,” Moore said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
