The news this morning that New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg is under serious consideration to be Secretary of Commerce is very big. Should Obama offer Gregg the job, and the Senator accept, it would rob the Republicans of yet another Senate seat, and potentially give the Democrats a 60th seat in the current Senate. In a word, such a move by Obama would be brilliant. And it would show just how far Obama has come as a political strategist and partisan thinker.
These discussions have come completely out of left field. No one saw this one coming. Sure, there has been scattered talk about Obama possibly offering a position to someone like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins -- the usual suspects given that they are the two most left-leaning Senate Republicans left -- but no one ever really considered Gregg for a post, especially since the cabinet filled out. This is precisely why the move would be so brilliant.
As we have noted in past posts, Gregg is up for a new term next year. A longtime fixture in Granite State politics, Gregg remains popular in New Hampshire, and it would be fair to say that he is the most popular Republican left there. Despite all of this, however, Gregg likely faces a tough race next year against someone like Congressman Paul Hodes. For this big reason, there has been a lot of chatter that Gregg has been thinking about making this his final stint in Congress. That he is now being considered for, and is himself considering a job in Obama's cabinet should only reinforce the validity of those rumors. Indeed, if Gregg were strongly married to the decision to seek another term, he likely would not be entertaining leaving the Senate right away.
Which brings us back to Obama. Obama and his team know all of this, and their decision to probe Gregg's candidacy as Commerce Secretary shows incredibly shrewdness. The cat may be out of the bag now, but Republicans were still caught flat-footed, and there is no doubt that prominent Senators have been lobbying Gregg hard over the last 24 hours not to accept any appointment that would lead him to vacate his Senate seat and give Democratic Governor John Lynch the power to appoint his replacement for the rest of this Congress. An appointment of Gregg would put another moderate Republican in the new Democratic President's cabinet, it would give the Democrats a great chance to get to a filibuster-proof 60 seats (assuming Al Franken is ultimately victorious), and it would rob the Republicans of one of their smartest members and at the same time strip the moribund party of one of its few remaining moderate voices (though, to be fair, Gregg is pretty conservative, just not when compared with individuals like Tom Coburn, Jeff Sessions, Jim DeMint, and others).
Obama's consideration of Gregg is a brilliant power-play, and the appointment of Gregg would be a political masterstroke. While this is hardly a done deal, this story would not have gotten out if Gregg were not under serious consideration.
Let me say one final thing. As I have documented before, when Obama first started running for President, I had little respect for his political savvy, believing him to be a somewhat idealistic and naive politician (as evidenced by his initial desire to vote to confirm John Roberts to be Chief Justice in 2005). Obviously, as the presidential campaign germinated and progressed and Obama ultimately emerged the big winner, this view of mine altered considerably. Making Rahm Emanuel his first appointment only reinforced this. However, should Obama tap Gregg for the Commerce post, I can promise that I will never, ever, ever question Obama's political chops, savvy, or plain ruthlessness ever again. To me, the move would be that smart.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
America's Dumbest Senator
John Cornyn of Texas is reputed to be America's dumbest senator for good reason. He has had to work very hard to demonstrate time and again that he may be the biggest fool in a body inhabited by dozens of dodos.
But today, Cornyn really one-upped himself. First, he blocked the Senate from considering Hillary Clinton's nomination to be Secretary of State. Because it was for a voice vote, Cornyn had the power to delay consideration of the nomination, but the nomination will sail through tomorrow through a roll call vote, which cannot be stopped in a similar fashion. So, in other words, Cornyn blocked for a single day a cabinet nomination which is sure to go through overwhelmingly, all on the day that a new President is being inaugurated. Classy job.
But what really got me was a small thing that happened in an interview Cornyn did this afternoon. While asked about Senator Ted Kennedy's seizure at the congressional inaugural lunch, Cornyn included a comment where he noted that -- and I am paraphrasing, since I don't remember his exact words -- 'while I do not agree with much with Kennedy politically, I hope for his speedy recovery.'
Earth to John: Everyone in America knows Kennedy is a liberal, and has been for decades. Duh. And we all know that it is a typical partisan dance for one hack to say that about the other party's hacks: i.e. we don't agree, but gee whiz, we still like each other and don't want each other to get sick. But with Kennedy just being stricken with a seizure, and continuing to battle lethal brain cancer, is it really necessary to qualify kind words with some partisan mumbo jumbo? I realize he is trying to really burnish his GOP credentials now that he is NRSC honcho -- then again, I don't think it is possible for Cornyn to be any more of an outward Republican foot-soldier than he has been since he took office in 2003 -- but couldn't he have just let it slide, and simply said some kind words about Kennedy?
In November, Cornyn easily won a second term over Rick Noriega. He won not because he was a great candidate or leader -- he is neither -- but because Noriega had no money, and the DSCC had too many other opportunities to lavish big bucks on an expensive Texas campaign. Cornyn has never been terribly popular in Texas. Watch 2014. Texas is slowly but surely becoming more blue. Had Noriega had really funding, he would have ended up around 47 or 48%. Come 2014, someone like moderate Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar has a good chance of ousting Cornyn.
Wise up, John.
But today, Cornyn really one-upped himself. First, he blocked the Senate from considering Hillary Clinton's nomination to be Secretary of State. Because it was for a voice vote, Cornyn had the power to delay consideration of the nomination, but the nomination will sail through tomorrow through a roll call vote, which cannot be stopped in a similar fashion. So, in other words, Cornyn blocked for a single day a cabinet nomination which is sure to go through overwhelmingly, all on the day that a new President is being inaugurated. Classy job.
But what really got me was a small thing that happened in an interview Cornyn did this afternoon. While asked about Senator Ted Kennedy's seizure at the congressional inaugural lunch, Cornyn included a comment where he noted that -- and I am paraphrasing, since I don't remember his exact words -- 'while I do not agree with much with Kennedy politically, I hope for his speedy recovery.'
Earth to John: Everyone in America knows Kennedy is a liberal, and has been for decades. Duh. And we all know that it is a typical partisan dance for one hack to say that about the other party's hacks: i.e. we don't agree, but gee whiz, we still like each other and don't want each other to get sick. But with Kennedy just being stricken with a seizure, and continuing to battle lethal brain cancer, is it really necessary to qualify kind words with some partisan mumbo jumbo? I realize he is trying to really burnish his GOP credentials now that he is NRSC honcho -- then again, I don't think it is possible for Cornyn to be any more of an outward Republican foot-soldier than he has been since he took office in 2003 -- but couldn't he have just let it slide, and simply said some kind words about Kennedy?
In November, Cornyn easily won a second term over Rick Noriega. He won not because he was a great candidate or leader -- he is neither -- but because Noriega had no money, and the DSCC had too many other opportunities to lavish big bucks on an expensive Texas campaign. Cornyn has never been terribly popular in Texas. Watch 2014. Texas is slowly but surely becoming more blue. Had Noriega had really funding, he would have ended up around 47 or 48%. Come 2014, someone like moderate Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar has a good chance of ousting Cornyn.
Wise up, John.
Eight Years?
A jarring thought just hit me: it has been eight years since the disputed 2000 presidential election. This is jarring to me because I remember that election night like it happened last week.
I was a junior in college at the time, and I watched the results come in with two of my fellow student council members/political junkies. We watched CNN until pretty late at night. I had guaranteed to my more skeptical friends that Al Gore would thread the needle by carrying Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. One-by-one these keys bricks fell into place, and when Florida was called, the whoops rose from my friends' third-floor apartment and the vodka flowed freely. However, when the Florida call was rescinded by the networks, confusion, then anger, then sadness, then despair, and then depression came and went in rapid succession, followed by more vodka, this time for a different purpose. I remember distinctly walking home along the Arts quad, with one of my friends it tow, blaming me for the loss because I had not "delivered" the states I promised would go blue. Silly me. When I got home, I flopped immediately into bed. I woke up around 4 AM, and checked CNN.com which said Bush won Florida, and went back to bed. We all know what transpired over the next month.
Anyway, I just can't believe it has been eight years since all of that went down. It seems like election night 2000 was more recent than election night 2004, though that may be because the latter was so awful it is worth suppressing from the Democratic perspective (in 2000, Democrats did have a fantastic night in the Senate races). Maybe all of this just means I am getting old.
I was a junior in college at the time, and I watched the results come in with two of my fellow student council members/political junkies. We watched CNN until pretty late at night. I had guaranteed to my more skeptical friends that Al Gore would thread the needle by carrying Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. One-by-one these keys bricks fell into place, and when Florida was called, the whoops rose from my friends' third-floor apartment and the vodka flowed freely. However, when the Florida call was rescinded by the networks, confusion, then anger, then sadness, then despair, and then depression came and went in rapid succession, followed by more vodka, this time for a different purpose. I remember distinctly walking home along the Arts quad, with one of my friends it tow, blaming me for the loss because I had not "delivered" the states I promised would go blue. Silly me. When I got home, I flopped immediately into bed. I woke up around 4 AM, and checked CNN.com which said Bush won Florida, and went back to bed. We all know what transpired over the next month.
Anyway, I just can't believe it has been eight years since all of that went down. It seems like election night 2000 was more recent than election night 2004, though that may be because the latter was so awful it is worth suppressing from the Democratic perspective (in 2000, Democrats did have a fantastic night in the Senate races). Maybe all of this just means I am getting old.
I Was There
Not long after the November elections, I was vowing that I intended to flee the city for the presidential inauguration. I have never been too big into pomp, circumstance, ceremony, balls, and cotillions, and I see the January inauguration the same may I view January football: it is viewed much more comfortably from a couch than from actually being there. Nor do I like huge crowds and throngs of people. This is precisely why I live in Washington as opposed to somewhere like New York where it is impossible to not walk five paces without bumping into another person. Finally, because I did not make it home for the holidays -- from a combination of laziness, disinterest, my family's dormant Judaism, and my folks getting a nasty intestinal flu on Christmas day from my niece -- it seemed liked as good a time as any for me to make an escape up north.
With but a few days remaining, I seemed pretty set to fulfill my plans to head up to lovely New Jersey for a week, not thinking twice about it. I even cashed in 3,000 of the Amtrak points I have been hoarding for years for a train ticket. Then I got a call from my mother. She pointed out how foolish it was for me to live the city when history was about to happen right in my own backyard. She noted that I could come back any time. And she invoked how much it meant to her when she saw JFK's inauguration with Robert Frost as a teenager. That last one was the kicker. I knew she was right, and I switched gears right away. (Though, I did not hurt that I actually had some parties and other activities to go to for once.)
So, this morning, I awoke at 6 AM to make a short trek down to the Mall. (I have to say, I must have been more excited than I thought I would be, as I had a pretty vivid dream that I overslept and missed the whole thing and could not find my friends either.) From the moment out the door, I realized it was going to be a pretty surreal day. Despite the strong cold and remaining darkness, there were streams of people headed down 17th Street towards Constitution. A casual observer of the scene might have placed it in a horror or end-of-the-world film, but the feeling permeating the crowd was not an eerie one, but rather a sense of built-up exhilaration and really, pure energy. Indeed, despite the early hour, the long walk for some, and harrowing temperatures for all, it seemed as though as everyone on their way to the National Mall was in perfect spirits.
The walk to the Mall was really not too bad. People were packed like sardines, but I think I got up early enough to get through fairly easily, not to mention that I live only a few blocks from the Washington Monument. Once I got to the Monument, there was much more space for me to get some daylight. I had one objective: to move well onto the Mall, and as far up as I could go. I had few illusions about reaching the reflecting pool by the Capitol -- I had no tickets -- but I wanted to go far up. Because I was unable to connect with some friends -- pre-planned meeting spaces have little meaning in the midst of closed streets, unreliable and packed subway cars, and millions of people smushed altogether -- I had the freedom to make my move unencumbered by slow-poke and distracted associates.
I was able to move fast to the outskirts of the Department of Agriculture on the main part of the Mall, where things were slowed by 14th Street. Once I got there, it was like eating soup with a fork: tens of thousands were already there, and moving forward was a matter of finding open pockets of grass (or in winter's case, dirt and straw), getting right behind other forward-thinking (not to mention moving) individuals, and displaying a plucky and at time shameless resolve to use myself and others as a human battering ram to get where I wanted to go. Yet, despite my pushiness, I found the mood of the crowd to be similar to the jovial feeling that was infused around me on my walk down 17th Street. People were almost universally in great spirits, and no one seemed to complain about the uneasiness of some (read: me) wanting to get to another spot.
After weaving through an impressive maze of police, barricades, barriers, fences, and people, I made it as absolutely far as possible, ending up by the Air and Space Museum and next to the MSNBC structure. Ultimately, I moved down a bit to stand next to a set of speakers. While I did not have the perfect view of one of the many huge screens erected on the Mall, I at least wanted to ensure that I would hear all of the key proceedings.
I would be remiss if I did not say a few words on the weather, perhaps the most uninviting part of today's festivities. It was cold. Very cold. When I got up this morning, it was in the teens, and I do not believe that the mercury rose much through the course of the morning. The blowing winds did not make things much more inviting, and after a while, my chapped skin and and the colorless surrounding dirt made me feel, albeit very briefly, that I was occupying the arctic tundra of an Alaskan interior village. The sun made sporadic appearances, but never really impacted the thermometer.
Nevertheless, what is interesting about all of this is that it did not bother me as much it should have or usually would have. When I decided on a place to put up my tent -- i.e. a location to stand for the duration -- I looked at my watch and ruefully wondered to myself how the heck I would survive the four hours before the swearing-in was supposed to take place. Yet, as the minutes melted by -- though, that word might not be the most appropriate given the temperature -- I was not at all miserable. For once I had had the foresight to bundle up: I had on five layers, a scarf, and a winter cap my mother sent me that would please active Eskimos, and I passed the time in relative contentment.
I was certainly not alone. The entire crowd seemed to exude a similar feeling. People were certainly freezing, but no one seemed in despair, boredom, enormous discomfort, or to betray any feeling that they wanted to be anywhere else. The crowd remained friendly throughout. This is not to say that the inauguration crowd -- at least around me -- was all standing together and chatting like everyone was an old friend of everyone else, even if that is the type of Candyland vision I am sure a lot of people in the media would like to push. Still, I don't think that mattered one bit. Some people were chatting, absolutely, but mostly, I think people were just standing there trying to weather the elements, but full of complete eager anticipation for the ceremonies to begin. That's a pretty good thing too.
To me, the ceremonies, particularly Obama's speech, were anti-climatic. The speech was merely okay, and the endless litany of announcements of politicians and their spouses on the stage was not terribly interesting. The best part of the day was something else. It was being in the middle of that astonishing crowd -- there must have been two million people there, as the entire Mall was blanketed with bodies -- and being part of something that I don't think could have happened today in any other modernized country on earth: the election of a black chief executive.
At the end of the speech, I lingered up front to see if I could get a better view of the Capitol and surroundings. Besides seeing the largest amount of assorted refuse I had even laid my eyes upon -- the poor clean-up crew! -- I was amazed at how many people remained on the Mall. Like me, I think many, many people just didn't want to leave, and wanted to continue to soak up whatever history, magic, whatever you want to call it that was still in the air. In 30 years, assuming I am lucky enough to remain on this earth, I likely won't remember the specifics of Obama's speech, or Chief Justice Roberts' minor flub of the oath, but rather this whole scene. This is going to be what I remember most about this day.
I have no idea if Obama will succeed as President. He certainly has the opportunity to do big things, but who knows? Yet, even though I am one of the most hardened political cynics in the world and am someone who sees little good in most national politicians, it is hard for me not to be at least a little bit awed by today's inauguration. That millions of people braved the bitter cold -- many of them for many, many hours -- is no small feat, and it is not lost on even a political pessimist like me.
When I finally got home after spending seven hours outside, with my nose running like a faucet and my feet feeling like sacks of granite and rusted pennies, all-in-all I felt pretty good. It was almost as if amazingly, the weather and the wait had no negative impact at all. I am very happy that in a generation I can say I was on the Mall on January 20, 2009.
With but a few days remaining, I seemed pretty set to fulfill my plans to head up to lovely New Jersey for a week, not thinking twice about it. I even cashed in 3,000 of the Amtrak points I have been hoarding for years for a train ticket. Then I got a call from my mother. She pointed out how foolish it was for me to live the city when history was about to happen right in my own backyard. She noted that I could come back any time. And she invoked how much it meant to her when she saw JFK's inauguration with Robert Frost as a teenager. That last one was the kicker. I knew she was right, and I switched gears right away. (Though, I did not hurt that I actually had some parties and other activities to go to for once.)
So, this morning, I awoke at 6 AM to make a short trek down to the Mall. (I have to say, I must have been more excited than I thought I would be, as I had a pretty vivid dream that I overslept and missed the whole thing and could not find my friends either.) From the moment out the door, I realized it was going to be a pretty surreal day. Despite the strong cold and remaining darkness, there were streams of people headed down 17th Street towards Constitution. A casual observer of the scene might have placed it in a horror or end-of-the-world film, but the feeling permeating the crowd was not an eerie one, but rather a sense of built-up exhilaration and really, pure energy. Indeed, despite the early hour, the long walk for some, and harrowing temperatures for all, it seemed as though as everyone on their way to the National Mall was in perfect spirits.
The walk to the Mall was really not too bad. People were packed like sardines, but I think I got up early enough to get through fairly easily, not to mention that I live only a few blocks from the Washington Monument. Once I got to the Monument, there was much more space for me to get some daylight. I had one objective: to move well onto the Mall, and as far up as I could go. I had few illusions about reaching the reflecting pool by the Capitol -- I had no tickets -- but I wanted to go far up. Because I was unable to connect with some friends -- pre-planned meeting spaces have little meaning in the midst of closed streets, unreliable and packed subway cars, and millions of people smushed altogether -- I had the freedom to make my move unencumbered by slow-poke and distracted associates.
I was able to move fast to the outskirts of the Department of Agriculture on the main part of the Mall, where things were slowed by 14th Street. Once I got there, it was like eating soup with a fork: tens of thousands were already there, and moving forward was a matter of finding open pockets of grass (or in winter's case, dirt and straw), getting right behind other forward-thinking (not to mention moving) individuals, and displaying a plucky and at time shameless resolve to use myself and others as a human battering ram to get where I wanted to go. Yet, despite my pushiness, I found the mood of the crowd to be similar to the jovial feeling that was infused around me on my walk down 17th Street. People were almost universally in great spirits, and no one seemed to complain about the uneasiness of some (read: me) wanting to get to another spot.
After weaving through an impressive maze of police, barricades, barriers, fences, and people, I made it as absolutely far as possible, ending up by the Air and Space Museum and next to the MSNBC structure. Ultimately, I moved down a bit to stand next to a set of speakers. While I did not have the perfect view of one of the many huge screens erected on the Mall, I at least wanted to ensure that I would hear all of the key proceedings.
I would be remiss if I did not say a few words on the weather, perhaps the most uninviting part of today's festivities. It was cold. Very cold. When I got up this morning, it was in the teens, and I do not believe that the mercury rose much through the course of the morning. The blowing winds did not make things much more inviting, and after a while, my chapped skin and and the colorless surrounding dirt made me feel, albeit very briefly, that I was occupying the arctic tundra of an Alaskan interior village. The sun made sporadic appearances, but never really impacted the thermometer.
Nevertheless, what is interesting about all of this is that it did not bother me as much it should have or usually would have. When I decided on a place to put up my tent -- i.e. a location to stand for the duration -- I looked at my watch and ruefully wondered to myself how the heck I would survive the four hours before the swearing-in was supposed to take place. Yet, as the minutes melted by -- though, that word might not be the most appropriate given the temperature -- I was not at all miserable. For once I had had the foresight to bundle up: I had on five layers, a scarf, and a winter cap my mother sent me that would please active Eskimos, and I passed the time in relative contentment.
I was certainly not alone. The entire crowd seemed to exude a similar feeling. People were certainly freezing, but no one seemed in despair, boredom, enormous discomfort, or to betray any feeling that they wanted to be anywhere else. The crowd remained friendly throughout. This is not to say that the inauguration crowd -- at least around me -- was all standing together and chatting like everyone was an old friend of everyone else, even if that is the type of Candyland vision I am sure a lot of people in the media would like to push. Still, I don't think that mattered one bit. Some people were chatting, absolutely, but mostly, I think people were just standing there trying to weather the elements, but full of complete eager anticipation for the ceremonies to begin. That's a pretty good thing too.
To me, the ceremonies, particularly Obama's speech, were anti-climatic. The speech was merely okay, and the endless litany of announcements of politicians and their spouses on the stage was not terribly interesting. The best part of the day was something else. It was being in the middle of that astonishing crowd -- there must have been two million people there, as the entire Mall was blanketed with bodies -- and being part of something that I don't think could have happened today in any other modernized country on earth: the election of a black chief executive.
At the end of the speech, I lingered up front to see if I could get a better view of the Capitol and surroundings. Besides seeing the largest amount of assorted refuse I had even laid my eyes upon -- the poor clean-up crew! -- I was amazed at how many people remained on the Mall. Like me, I think many, many people just didn't want to leave, and wanted to continue to soak up whatever history, magic, whatever you want to call it that was still in the air. In 30 years, assuming I am lucky enough to remain on this earth, I likely won't remember the specifics of Obama's speech, or Chief Justice Roberts' minor flub of the oath, but rather this whole scene. This is going to be what I remember most about this day.
I have no idea if Obama will succeed as President. He certainly has the opportunity to do big things, but who knows? Yet, even though I am one of the most hardened political cynics in the world and am someone who sees little good in most national politicians, it is hard for me not to be at least a little bit awed by today's inauguration. That millions of people braved the bitter cold -- many of them for many, many hours -- is no small feat, and it is not lost on even a political pessimist like me.
When I finally got home after spending seven hours outside, with my nose running like a faucet and my feet feeling like sacks of granite and rusted pennies, all-in-all I felt pretty good. It was almost as if amazingly, the weather and the wait had no negative impact at all. I am very happy that in a generation I can say I was on the Mall on January 20, 2009.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
This Time, Dems Taste Bad Luck
As we have been discussing of late, since the new year, Senate Republicans have caught a series of bad breaks, as four incumbents have announced their retirements in quick succession, knocking the party right back into the hole it found itself in the morning after the election. Well, this week Dems got a bit of their own bad news, as popular New Hampshire Governor John Lynch fairly emphatically announced that he will not challenge Republican Senator Judd Gregg in 2010.
Had Lynch decided to run, he would have been the likely frontrunner, even if Gregg opts for another term. Lynch is hyper-popular in New Hampshire right now, and he has received enormous majorities in his last two elections in 2006 and 2008 (New Hampshire's governor is up every two years). He was far and away the Dems' best possible nominee for the seat in two years. The focus now turns to second-term Rep. Paul Hodes, who is probably the best option remaining for the blue team. Hodes is supposedly strongly considering it. As we have already discussed, Second District Rep. Carol Shea-Porter is also thinking about running, but we believe she would be a weak challenger, and an almost sure loser if Gregg runs again.
A lot of people (Democrats) have been looking at this race in the wrong way in their view of Gregg's viability. No one can question that New Hampshire has moved sharply to towards the Democrats in the last few years, with the party capturing and holding the governor's office, the state legislature, both congressional seats, and one of the U.S. Senate seats. That being said, Gregg remains the most popular Republican figure in the state, and a longtime fixture in New Hampshire (before coming to the Senate in 1992, he was governor). His popularity may not be as high as it once was, but he will still be a very formidable foe for national Democrats to take out. Even against Lynch, he would have had a good shot to win, and against lesser opponents, his chances are improved. If Hodes runs, Gregg should still be favored, and I think he would probably win in the end too.
There is talk that Gregg is considering retirement. Personally, unlike someone like Chuck Grassley, I don't think Gregg is a great candidate for retirement as he is not that old. However, should he decide to hang up his spurs and head for the exits, New Hampshire would move to the very top of the list of Senate seats likely to switch sides. For that reason, you can bet your life that John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, and others are pleading with Gregg to stick it out for at least another term.
Had Lynch decided to run, he would have been the likely frontrunner, even if Gregg opts for another term. Lynch is hyper-popular in New Hampshire right now, and he has received enormous majorities in his last two elections in 2006 and 2008 (New Hampshire's governor is up every two years). He was far and away the Dems' best possible nominee for the seat in two years. The focus now turns to second-term Rep. Paul Hodes, who is probably the best option remaining for the blue team. Hodes is supposedly strongly considering it. As we have already discussed, Second District Rep. Carol Shea-Porter is also thinking about running, but we believe she would be a weak challenger, and an almost sure loser if Gregg runs again.
A lot of people (Democrats) have been looking at this race in the wrong way in their view of Gregg's viability. No one can question that New Hampshire has moved sharply to towards the Democrats in the last few years, with the party capturing and holding the governor's office, the state legislature, both congressional seats, and one of the U.S. Senate seats. That being said, Gregg remains the most popular Republican figure in the state, and a longtime fixture in New Hampshire (before coming to the Senate in 1992, he was governor). His popularity may not be as high as it once was, but he will still be a very formidable foe for national Democrats to take out. Even against Lynch, he would have had a good shot to win, and against lesser opponents, his chances are improved. If Hodes runs, Gregg should still be favored, and I think he would probably win in the end too.
There is talk that Gregg is considering retirement. Personally, unlike someone like Chuck Grassley, I don't think Gregg is a great candidate for retirement as he is not that old. However, should he decide to hang up his spurs and head for the exits, New Hampshire would move to the very top of the list of Senate seats likely to switch sides. For that reason, you can bet your life that John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, and others are pleading with Gregg to stick it out for at least another term.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Wake Up and Smell the Reality
This item from this evening caught my eye:
Now that Roland Burris will soon be seated in the United States Senate, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn is calling the Illinois Senate race a “top priority” for the party in 2010.
“I fully expect that the voters of Illinois will not soon forget this dark chapter in their state’s political history, just as I also expect voters across the country will not soon forget the arrogant mismanagement of Senate Democrat leaders in recent weeks,” Cornyn said in a statement.
“Rebuilding the public trust in Illinois and re-gaining this Senate seat will be a top priority for Republicans in 2010.”
There is no doubt that even though the current Burris/Blago saga is over and Burris is being seated in the Senate, Democrats are not in the ideal position right now with regards to the seat. People in Illinois remain embarrassed and disgusted with the Blagojevich scandal, and Burris' very presence makes both him and the state party vulnerable when the seat comes up in 2010. Nevertheless, I see little chance that the seat will flip to the Republicans in two years, even if by some unlikely event Burris is the Democratic nominee in 2010.
Consider the following:
* In two years, once Blagojevich is out of office, and perhaps even convicted by then, the stench of corruption will waft a little less strongly over the seat
* There is an excellent chance Burris will be ousted in a primary -- assuming he runs for a full term -- by another Democrat who is not tied as closely to Blagojevich
* The Republican bench in the state stinks
I realize John Cornyn has to speak with lots of bluster in his position as NRCC honcho/GOP cheerleader, just as people like Schumer, Van Hollen, and others have had to do for Dems in their positions. Still, don't expect this seat to change hands any time soon, for one simple reason:
Barack Obama.
Regardless of what happens to Obama's national popularity in the next two years, he will remain a national force, and a hero in his homestate. What does this mean? Simply that there is absolutely no way Obama would allow this seat, his seat to be lost. Even in the worst case scenario for Dems -- Blago's trial is still ongoing in late 2010, Burris wins the nomination, and the GOP nominates their best possible nominee in Mark Kirk -- the blue team would still likely hold the seat. If the race is close (and even if it is not that close), Obama will play a big role in raising money and jacking up turnout on behalf of whoever runs for a full term on the Democratic line. Obama will not let his own seat go to the Republicans on his watch. You can take that to the bank.
The only way I saw Dems conceivably losing this seat was if state legislators were foolish enough to call a special election while people were still furious at Blagojevich and Dems. If that had happened, Kirk could have snuck past also-rans like Burris, Danny Davis, Jesse Jackson Jr, or others. But with no special -- the legislators wised up fast -- Kirk would have a hard time winning in November 2010.
In sum, if you ever fall into the trap of thinking that the Illinois Senate seat could be endangered, just remember who is in the White House. Other than that, it would take the old Earl Long dead-girl-live-boy scandal to turn the seat red.
Now that Roland Burris will soon be seated in the United States Senate, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn is calling the Illinois Senate race a “top priority” for the party in 2010.
“I fully expect that the voters of Illinois will not soon forget this dark chapter in their state’s political history, just as I also expect voters across the country will not soon forget the arrogant mismanagement of Senate Democrat leaders in recent weeks,” Cornyn said in a statement.
“Rebuilding the public trust in Illinois and re-gaining this Senate seat will be a top priority for Republicans in 2010.”
There is no doubt that even though the current Burris/Blago saga is over and Burris is being seated in the Senate, Democrats are not in the ideal position right now with regards to the seat. People in Illinois remain embarrassed and disgusted with the Blagojevich scandal, and Burris' very presence makes both him and the state party vulnerable when the seat comes up in 2010. Nevertheless, I see little chance that the seat will flip to the Republicans in two years, even if by some unlikely event Burris is the Democratic nominee in 2010.
Consider the following:
* In two years, once Blagojevich is out of office, and perhaps even convicted by then, the stench of corruption will waft a little less strongly over the seat
* There is an excellent chance Burris will be ousted in a primary -- assuming he runs for a full term -- by another Democrat who is not tied as closely to Blagojevich
* The Republican bench in the state stinks
I realize John Cornyn has to speak with lots of bluster in his position as NRCC honcho/GOP cheerleader, just as people like Schumer, Van Hollen, and others have had to do for Dems in their positions. Still, don't expect this seat to change hands any time soon, for one simple reason:
Barack Obama.
Regardless of what happens to Obama's national popularity in the next two years, he will remain a national force, and a hero in his homestate. What does this mean? Simply that there is absolutely no way Obama would allow this seat, his seat to be lost. Even in the worst case scenario for Dems -- Blago's trial is still ongoing in late 2010, Burris wins the nomination, and the GOP nominates their best possible nominee in Mark Kirk -- the blue team would still likely hold the seat. If the race is close (and even if it is not that close), Obama will play a big role in raising money and jacking up turnout on behalf of whoever runs for a full term on the Democratic line. Obama will not let his own seat go to the Republicans on his watch. You can take that to the bank.
The only way I saw Dems conceivably losing this seat was if state legislators were foolish enough to call a special election while people were still furious at Blagojevich and Dems. If that had happened, Kirk could have snuck past also-rans like Burris, Danny Davis, Jesse Jackson Jr, or others. But with no special -- the legislators wised up fast -- Kirk would have a hard time winning in November 2010.
In sum, if you ever fall into the trap of thinking that the Illinois Senate seat could be endangered, just remember who is in the White House. Other than that, it would take the old Earl Long dead-girl-live-boy scandal to turn the seat red.
Another GOP Bummer in Ohio
Today's announcement by Republican Senator George Voinovich (Ohio) that he intends to retire next year is another headache for a party already sitting at 41 seats in the upper chamber. Voinovich joins Kit Bond (Missouri), Sam Brownback (Kansas), and Mel Martinez (Florida) as GOPers already announcing that they will not run for another term when they come up in 2010.
Voinovich's retirement is a somewhat mixed bag for the Republicans. On the one hand, unless a rep or senator is under indictment, it is always undesirable for a sitting incumbent's party to lose an incumbent, given most incumbents' high name recognition and their ability to raise money more easily. For his part, Voinovich is a longtime fixture in the Buckeye State, and his moderate, even posture has made him a formidable political force there. That being said, in recent years Voinovich's political standing at home has taken a big hit (in no small measure to the self-destruction of the Ohio Republican Party), and polling has suggested that had he run again, Voinovich would have faced a tough slog towards a third term. Therefore, am argument can be made that replacing Voinovich with a fresh face might give the Republicans a better chance to hold the seat.
I am inclined to buy the former line of thinking, and I see this latest retirement as more bad news for the Republicans. Voinovich has universal name recognition in Ohio, and as a more moderate member of Congress, he would not have been less vulnerable to attacks by Democrats attempting to tie him to the unpopular GOP Congress and the even more unpopular Bush years. I think he would have been a slight favorite had a chosen to run again next year, but now the race is a toss-up, at least until the primary fields develop more fully.
The GOP side looks a little more settled, even today, and not necessarily in a good way. Former Congressman Rob Portman appears like he is jumping right in. Portman left Congress a few years ago to join the Bush administration, first as the U.S. Trade Representative and then as the head of the OMB. A solid conservative from the red Cincinnati suburbs, Portman should garner widespread support among state and national Republicans. He should also be able to raise big money from his contacts and deep-pocketed allies.
Still, I think Portman will be a flawed candidate. First, despite the bluster of Republicans today, Portman is not well-known statewide. He was a rep for just one-eighteenth of the state, and even though he served in two very important federal posts, they are not exactly jobs that many Americans know a thing about. I would wager a great deal of money most Ohioians have no idea that one of their own was the trade rep and head of OMB. Second, Portman's ties to the brutally unpopular Bush years, particularly as a member of his economic/budget circle before the economic collapse, will be a prime target for Democrats, and it will become nightly fodder for hard-hitting commercials. You can bet that Portman will run away from what he has been doing the last few years, but these ties will take a heavy toll on his candidacy.
At the very least, Portman will likely be able to sew the nomination up pretty neatly. One likely opponent, former Congressman John Kasich has been making more noise that he wants to challenge Gov. Ted Strickland in 2010 instead. And even if Kasich would prefer to go for the Senate prize, look for John Cornyn and the NRSC to try to muscle him out in order to avoid a costly primary. If Kasich were to get in, that would make for an interesting match-up: the former head of OMB versus the former chair of the House Budget Committee. Specifically, Kasich is a likeable guy, and he has been hosting a semi-regular show on Fox News for some time, so he has retained at least some of his name recognition (he left Congress in 2000). However, his work for the GOP Congress, not to mention a post-Congress stint working for Lehman Brothers, could be big liabilities. Former Secretary of State and 2006 gubernatorial nominee Ken Blackwell could also run, and to Portman's right, but for the time being he is pursuing the chairmanship of the RNC, so his prospects are much more uncertain today.
The Democratic side is a harder to call tonight. In my opinion, the strongest nominee is current Congressman Tim Ryan of Eastern Ohio. Elected in 2002, Ryan is very young, very telegenic, and he has a good blue collar base (Youngstown) that could serve him very well in a statewide run. Additionally, while Ryan has a mostly liberal voting record, he is pro-life, which would be an asset for him in the more conservative pockets of the state. Some may argue that Ryan is less likely to run because he was tapped for the Appropriations Committee in the last Congress. Just as when this argument is proffered in relation to other members, let me again call it complete hooey. Yes, Approps is one of the very best committees in Congress, but take a look at Ryan's resume. He was elected to Congress the age of 29. This is not a guy who wants to sit as a back-bencher in the House forever: he is very ambitious. A Senate run for an open seat next year is the perfect opportunity for him, and if he has any guts, vision, or savvy at all, now is the time to make a race. Given his age, he could serve six or seven terms. But if does not run, a Senate seat may not open for 20 years. Ryan is tonight said to be considering this race.
The other possible Dems are okay. Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher may be too old, and he has already lost statewide runs. Second-term Congresswoman Betty Sutton, is, in my humble opinion, a light weight, and her representing the same district that current Sen. Sherrod Brown vacated in 2006 to go to the Senate may not be an asset. Fellow second-termer Zach Space is very interesting. Space represents a pretty Republican district, and if he could do well in his region of the state, he could win on the back of the urban centers. Plus, he may consider a run with a more difficult contest looming for him in 2010 (not to mention that Ohio is going to lose two House seats in the next census). To be honest, I don't know enough about Space's record to make a fully reasoned opinion of him, but he could be a potentially strong nominee and someone worth watching, especially if Ryan foolishly decides not to run.
A Portman-Ryan or Portman-Space race (forgive the unintentional pun there) would have to be viewed as a toss-up. Both national parties will spend heavily: Republicans want desperately to hold off Ohio's seeming leftward movement, and Democrats want to control both Senate seats for the first times since the days of Howard Metzenbaum and John Glenn. With Gov. Strickland likely to romp to a second term in 2010, whoever the Dems put up will likely see a boast from the popular governor, not to mention the fundraising advantage cash-rich Dems will enjoy over their counterparts. My own initial sense is that while Democrats would be foolish to dismiss Portman's chances, Ryan should be able to beat him, barring a change for the worse in the economy or in Obama's popularity. And even if this outlook may be a bit too rosy for the blue team, there's little doubt Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn are suffering from some heartburn tonight.
Voinovich's retirement is a somewhat mixed bag for the Republicans. On the one hand, unless a rep or senator is under indictment, it is always undesirable for a sitting incumbent's party to lose an incumbent, given most incumbents' high name recognition and their ability to raise money more easily. For his part, Voinovich is a longtime fixture in the Buckeye State, and his moderate, even posture has made him a formidable political force there. That being said, in recent years Voinovich's political standing at home has taken a big hit (in no small measure to the self-destruction of the Ohio Republican Party), and polling has suggested that had he run again, Voinovich would have faced a tough slog towards a third term. Therefore, am argument can be made that replacing Voinovich with a fresh face might give the Republicans a better chance to hold the seat.
I am inclined to buy the former line of thinking, and I see this latest retirement as more bad news for the Republicans. Voinovich has universal name recognition in Ohio, and as a more moderate member of Congress, he would not have been less vulnerable to attacks by Democrats attempting to tie him to the unpopular GOP Congress and the even more unpopular Bush years. I think he would have been a slight favorite had a chosen to run again next year, but now the race is a toss-up, at least until the primary fields develop more fully.
The GOP side looks a little more settled, even today, and not necessarily in a good way. Former Congressman Rob Portman appears like he is jumping right in. Portman left Congress a few years ago to join the Bush administration, first as the U.S. Trade Representative and then as the head of the OMB. A solid conservative from the red Cincinnati suburbs, Portman should garner widespread support among state and national Republicans. He should also be able to raise big money from his contacts and deep-pocketed allies.
Still, I think Portman will be a flawed candidate. First, despite the bluster of Republicans today, Portman is not well-known statewide. He was a rep for just one-eighteenth of the state, and even though he served in two very important federal posts, they are not exactly jobs that many Americans know a thing about. I would wager a great deal of money most Ohioians have no idea that one of their own was the trade rep and head of OMB. Second, Portman's ties to the brutally unpopular Bush years, particularly as a member of his economic/budget circle before the economic collapse, will be a prime target for Democrats, and it will become nightly fodder for hard-hitting commercials. You can bet that Portman will run away from what he has been doing the last few years, but these ties will take a heavy toll on his candidacy.
At the very least, Portman will likely be able to sew the nomination up pretty neatly. One likely opponent, former Congressman John Kasich has been making more noise that he wants to challenge Gov. Ted Strickland in 2010 instead. And even if Kasich would prefer to go for the Senate prize, look for John Cornyn and the NRSC to try to muscle him out in order to avoid a costly primary. If Kasich were to get in, that would make for an interesting match-up: the former head of OMB versus the former chair of the House Budget Committee. Specifically, Kasich is a likeable guy, and he has been hosting a semi-regular show on Fox News for some time, so he has retained at least some of his name recognition (he left Congress in 2000). However, his work for the GOP Congress, not to mention a post-Congress stint working for Lehman Brothers, could be big liabilities. Former Secretary of State and 2006 gubernatorial nominee Ken Blackwell could also run, and to Portman's right, but for the time being he is pursuing the chairmanship of the RNC, so his prospects are much more uncertain today.
The Democratic side is a harder to call tonight. In my opinion, the strongest nominee is current Congressman Tim Ryan of Eastern Ohio. Elected in 2002, Ryan is very young, very telegenic, and he has a good blue collar base (Youngstown) that could serve him very well in a statewide run. Additionally, while Ryan has a mostly liberal voting record, he is pro-life, which would be an asset for him in the more conservative pockets of the state. Some may argue that Ryan is less likely to run because he was tapped for the Appropriations Committee in the last Congress. Just as when this argument is proffered in relation to other members, let me again call it complete hooey. Yes, Approps is one of the very best committees in Congress, but take a look at Ryan's resume. He was elected to Congress the age of 29. This is not a guy who wants to sit as a back-bencher in the House forever: he is very ambitious. A Senate run for an open seat next year is the perfect opportunity for him, and if he has any guts, vision, or savvy at all, now is the time to make a race. Given his age, he could serve six or seven terms. But if does not run, a Senate seat may not open for 20 years. Ryan is tonight said to be considering this race.
The other possible Dems are okay. Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher may be too old, and he has already lost statewide runs. Second-term Congresswoman Betty Sutton, is, in my humble opinion, a light weight, and her representing the same district that current Sen. Sherrod Brown vacated in 2006 to go to the Senate may not be an asset. Fellow second-termer Zach Space is very interesting. Space represents a pretty Republican district, and if he could do well in his region of the state, he could win on the back of the urban centers. Plus, he may consider a run with a more difficult contest looming for him in 2010 (not to mention that Ohio is going to lose two House seats in the next census). To be honest, I don't know enough about Space's record to make a fully reasoned opinion of him, but he could be a potentially strong nominee and someone worth watching, especially if Ryan foolishly decides not to run.
A Portman-Ryan or Portman-Space race (forgive the unintentional pun there) would have to be viewed as a toss-up. Both national parties will spend heavily: Republicans want desperately to hold off Ohio's seeming leftward movement, and Democrats want to control both Senate seats for the first times since the days of Howard Metzenbaum and John Glenn. With Gov. Strickland likely to romp to a second term in 2010, whoever the Dems put up will likely see a boast from the popular governor, not to mention the fundraising advantage cash-rich Dems will enjoy over their counterparts. My own initial sense is that while Democrats would be foolish to dismiss Portman's chances, Ryan should be able to beat him, barring a change for the worse in the economy or in Obama's popularity. And even if this outlook may be a bit too rosy for the blue team, there's little doubt Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn are suffering from some heartburn tonight.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Perspective
Today Norm Coleman announced that he would contest Al Franken's apparent victory in their Senate contest, taking the matter to court. Coleman's announcement, which had been expected given the fighting words of his attorneys over the last few weeks, does not seem to gibe well with his words on election night. That night, despite holding a tiny lead -- incidentally, of fewer votes than the 225 votes Franken apparently won by at the end of the recount -- Coleman called on Franken to concede defeat.
Perspective is a funny thing, isn't it?
That being said, I understand Coleman's feelings today. While I have said in the past, and continue to believe that Coleman has had a charmed political life -- he would have lost in 2002 had Paul Wellstone not died days before the election, and had Dean Barkley not run a third party challenge this year, the race with Franken likely would not even had been close -- losing a race by less than one-hundredth of one percent is a tough pill to swallow. To prepare your whole life and all of your professional actions to one day serve in Congress, and run a campaign day and night for two years, only to lose by a couple hundred votes out of three million is likely an awful experience. For that reason, I can't fault Coleman for having a hard time letting go and I won't criticize him too much.
Perspective is a funny thing, isn't it?
That being said, I understand Coleman's feelings today. While I have said in the past, and continue to believe that Coleman has had a charmed political life -- he would have lost in 2002 had Paul Wellstone not died days before the election, and had Dean Barkley not run a third party challenge this year, the race with Franken likely would not even had been close -- losing a race by less than one-hundredth of one percent is a tough pill to swallow. To prepare your whole life and all of your professional actions to one day serve in Congress, and run a campaign day and night for two years, only to lose by a couple hundred votes out of three million is likely an awful experience. For that reason, I can't fault Coleman for having a hard time letting go and I won't criticize him too much.
Terrible Break for Republicans
The GOP caught some awful news today when former Florida Governor Jeb Bush announced he would not run for the Senate seat that will be vacated by Senator Mel Martinez in 2010. This is a rough one for the Republicans, and a terrific turn of events for the Democrats.
For a while, Martinez had been viewed as the most vulnerable sitting Senator coming up in 2010, and there is little question that this long-standing weakness played a large role in his decision to retire from the Senate after serving just one term. At the time, his move was a downer to many Dems who were eager to take on the wounded senator. Additionally, Bush's initial interest in the seat was really bitter for the Blue Team, and for more than the obvious Bush-hate. Make no mistake: had Bush decided to run, he would have been an extremely strong favorite to win the seat, almost regardless of which Democrat had decided to run against him -- and it is likely that every strong Dem on the Sunshine State bench would have avoided making the race like the plague.
It is for this reason that Republicans should be fairly devastated today. Bush would have virtually guaranteed that the seat would be a hold in their column, but now the Democrats again have a superb shot of gaining a new pick-up, as they have a handful of very strong potential nominees headlined by state CFO Alex Sink and second-term South Florida Rep. Ron Klein. To be sure, the GOP also has some strong nominees including uber popular Gov. Charlie Crist (though, personally I don't think he will go for it and instead opt for a second term as governor, also in 2010). Still, Bush's decision to sit this race out is a big blow to the GOP, and a boon to the likely frontrunner Sink.
For a while, Martinez had been viewed as the most vulnerable sitting Senator coming up in 2010, and there is little question that this long-standing weakness played a large role in his decision to retire from the Senate after serving just one term. At the time, his move was a downer to many Dems who were eager to take on the wounded senator. Additionally, Bush's initial interest in the seat was really bitter for the Blue Team, and for more than the obvious Bush-hate. Make no mistake: had Bush decided to run, he would have been an extremely strong favorite to win the seat, almost regardless of which Democrat had decided to run against him -- and it is likely that every strong Dem on the Sunshine State bench would have avoided making the race like the plague.
It is for this reason that Republicans should be fairly devastated today. Bush would have virtually guaranteed that the seat would be a hold in their column, but now the Democrats again have a superb shot of gaining a new pick-up, as they have a handful of very strong potential nominees headlined by state CFO Alex Sink and second-term South Florida Rep. Ron Klein. To be sure, the GOP also has some strong nominees including uber popular Gov. Charlie Crist (though, personally I don't think he will go for it and instead opt for a second term as governor, also in 2010). Still, Bush's decision to sit this race out is a big blow to the GOP, and a boon to the likely frontrunner Sink.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Harry the Field Mouse
In the past, we've described Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as a "field mouse." Really, what's the first word that pops into your head when you think of Reid? Besides "mouse", honestly, the second word for me would probably be "weak." Harry Reid is a weak leader, and you can read it on his face, not to mention in his meek words and even meeker actions.
This all was evidenced once again with the most recent events in the Roland Burris-Rod Blagojevich Senate saga. After Burris' appointment was made, and up through the last few days, Reid has talked very tough, intimating that he would do whatever he could to ensure that Burris would not serve in the United States Senate. Indeed, this stance made a great deal of sense, as any appointment by the disgraced Blagojevich would potentially taint national Democrats in the Senate and elsewhere. However, already today Reid seems to be beginning his perhaps-inevitable backtracking, noting that he is willing to "negotiate" the matter with Burris.
Reid's backtracking is not a great shock, given that he possesses limited means to block an individual legally appointed to his seat. In Illinois, despite his considerable troubles, Blagojevich today remains in office, and as a result, under state law he may still make appointments to vacant U.S. Senate seats. So, Burris, despite being a huge distraction and a potentially enormous liability, is coming to Washington, and there is little Harry Reid or anyone else can do about it. Therefore, one cannot fault Reid or other party leadership for not upending the appointment, or even trying to talk tough in an attempt to deter Burris from taking the job he covets.
All of that being said, this latest episode does nothing to strengthen Reid's weak standing. In simple terms, Reid's threat and then heady retreat hardly make the Senate Majority Leader's position look strong. This is another incident in a series of recent and fairly-recent stories that have made Reid look weak and uninspiring. More importantly, they bring into question whether Democrats should have confidence that Reid is the man who should guide the 59 Democrats in the Upper Chamber towards ratifying the new President's agenda. In my un-expert opinion, they should not. But unfortunately for savvy Dems, do not look for Reid to be ousted from his position any time soon, unless he is defeated for re-election in 2010 (a distinct possibility, but nonetheless far in the distance). The prospect of tossing out a leader with a strong majority and a new popular President is extremely unlikely to occur, even if Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin would be a far better option.
This all was evidenced once again with the most recent events in the Roland Burris-Rod Blagojevich Senate saga. After Burris' appointment was made, and up through the last few days, Reid has talked very tough, intimating that he would do whatever he could to ensure that Burris would not serve in the United States Senate. Indeed, this stance made a great deal of sense, as any appointment by the disgraced Blagojevich would potentially taint national Democrats in the Senate and elsewhere. However, already today Reid seems to be beginning his perhaps-inevitable backtracking, noting that he is willing to "negotiate" the matter with Burris.
Reid's backtracking is not a great shock, given that he possesses limited means to block an individual legally appointed to his seat. In Illinois, despite his considerable troubles, Blagojevich today remains in office, and as a result, under state law he may still make appointments to vacant U.S. Senate seats. So, Burris, despite being a huge distraction and a potentially enormous liability, is coming to Washington, and there is little Harry Reid or anyone else can do about it. Therefore, one cannot fault Reid or other party leadership for not upending the appointment, or even trying to talk tough in an attempt to deter Burris from taking the job he covets.
All of that being said, this latest episode does nothing to strengthen Reid's weak standing. In simple terms, Reid's threat and then heady retreat hardly make the Senate Majority Leader's position look strong. This is another incident in a series of recent and fairly-recent stories that have made Reid look weak and uninspiring. More importantly, they bring into question whether Democrats should have confidence that Reid is the man who should guide the 59 Democrats in the Upper Chamber towards ratifying the new President's agenda. In my un-expert opinion, they should not. But unfortunately for savvy Dems, do not look for Reid to be ousted from his position any time soon, unless he is defeated for re-election in 2010 (a distinct possibility, but nonetheless far in the distance). The prospect of tossing out a leader with a strong majority and a new popular President is extremely unlikely to occur, even if Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin would be a far better option.
Kaine to DNC No Big News
The leaked word today is that Virginia Governor Tim Kaine would take over the leadership of the Democratic National Committee (first on a parttime basis, and then fulltime once his term as governor expires at the end of this year), is not really much news at all. The reason for this is that the formal head of the Democratic Party -- the party soon to be in control of the White House -- is a mostly powerless position: President Obama will be the true head of the Dems, and his decisions will guide its decision-making at the national level. Whoever heads the party is a cheerleader and salesman (mostly on tv) for the President's agenda and policies, and a bagman who concentrates on being a prolific fundraiser (and really, Obama himself will be the party's biggest draw and the top fundraiser by a very sizable margin).
When it comes down to it, this appointment says on two key things. First, that the head of the party has to be a staunch loyalist to the President, and Obama gets that in Kaine, one of the very first big elected officials to endorse Obama's presidential run. Second, this is a reward for Kaine's early and vociferous support of Obama. Because Kaine's term as governor does not end for another year, this factor likely played a big part in Kaine not obtaining a cabinet position as he would have had to leave the governorship in the hands of the Republican Lieutenant Governor. Consequently, with Kaine slated to be out of work at the start of 2010, Obama wanted to put him in a high-profile (albeit institutionally weak) position in order to remain relevant until a nicer slot opens up (perhaps in the cabinet or elsewhere). Reading too much into what this job means for Kaine or Obama should thus be avoided.
When it comes down to it, this appointment says on two key things. First, that the head of the party has to be a staunch loyalist to the President, and Obama gets that in Kaine, one of the very first big elected officials to endorse Obama's presidential run. Second, this is a reward for Kaine's early and vociferous support of Obama. Because Kaine's term as governor does not end for another year, this factor likely played a big part in Kaine not obtaining a cabinet position as he would have had to leave the governorship in the hands of the Republican Lieutenant Governor. Consequently, with Kaine slated to be out of work at the start of 2010, Obama wanted to put him in a high-profile (albeit institutionally weak) position in order to remain relevant until a nicer slot opens up (perhaps in the cabinet or elsewhere). Reading too much into what this job means for Kaine or Obama should thus be avoided.
What is Bill Ritter Doing?
This happened a few days ago, but it is nonetheless still big news. In a surprising move, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter tapped the head of Colorado state education, Michael Bennett, to finish out the final two years of the departing Ken Salazar who is taking over the Department of the Interior. The appointment was fairly shocking, as Bennett was not on any of the public short lists of candidates being circulated by the media.
What surprises me most is that Ritter picked the unknown Bennett over the very well-known John Hickenlooper, the current mayor of Denver. As we already noted here in a recent post, Hick was head-and-shoulders the best choice for Ritter given his high name recognition, his business-centric personal and professional record, the strong relationships he enjoys with several state Republicans, and his lack of a legislative record. The only polling I saw on prospective 2010 contests had Hick easily beating some of the GOP's best possible nominees including former Govenor Bill Ritter and outgoing congressman Tom Tancredo.
Now, there is no question that Bennett also possesses that final attribute, as he has never served in a state or federal legislative body. Prior to assuming his current position, he was ironically the chief of staff to Hickenlooper. That being said, I think Bennett is considerably weaker than Hick precisely because he has absolutely no name recognition. Hick would have started in his position well known right of the gate, and a very strong candidate to win a full term when the seat comes up in 2010.
Bennett will now have nearly two years to make a name for himself and build up his electoral viability across the expansive state. He will also likely be able to tap the national party and his status as incumbent to raise the boatloads of money necessary to run for U.S. Senate these days. Not to mention that with both Colorado moving further to the Democratic Party -- as evidenced by the Democrats capturing the governorship, both senate seats, the state legislature and the Third, Fourth, and Seventh congressional districts, all in the last few years -- and the shallow Republican bench in state, Bennett should, by all accounts, be able to win a full term without enormous problems.
Still, Democrats should be a little nervous and perhaps taken aback by the selection. Bennett starts his Senate tenure weak and totally unknown. Ritter's passing over Hickenlooper was foolish politically, and if some rumors are to be believed -- some state political observers surmise Hick was passed over because of lingering resentment for his flirtation with running against Ritter in the 2006 gubernatorial primary (in a contest he likely would have won) and then not endorsing Ritter until late --Ritter's decision was colored by the typical petty political vendettas that often dominate the decision-making of powerful leaders who should know better. In other words, all concerns may be moot if Bennett is able to conquer a weak GOP challenger in two years (see Tancredo, Tom), but these fears would not be terribly relevant if Ritter had made the smart political move. Only time will tell on this score, however. In my opinion, it is likely that Bennett was picked in part to preempt a Hickenlooper primary challenge, as Hick and Bennett remain close (at least from what I have read; though that relationship may not become frayed!).
One more thing on the appointment. In all of the articles coming out on the surprise Bennett pick, few failed to mention that Bennett is a Yale Law School alum, and that -- gasp! -- he was an editor at the Yale Law Journal. Can I ask why in God's name this matters? Who the [bleep] cares if this guy worked on a law review and why should this make him qualified to be a United States Senator? This really bugs me, and you see it a lot. One's pedigree is always a nice garnish in life, but I have come to believe that it means just about zero in determining whether he or she should hold something like high elective office. It is a joke, and it should not matter one iota. And all of this is coming from a guy who graduated from an Ivy League college. I am just sick and tired of huge reliance on one's membership on a law journal as some great indicator of brilliance or worthiness of life's success. And having worked on Capitol Hill, I know full well that Democrats are far guiltier of relying on pedigrees and fancy school degrees in making hires. It's awful.
What surprises me most is that Ritter picked the unknown Bennett over the very well-known John Hickenlooper, the current mayor of Denver. As we already noted here in a recent post, Hick was head-and-shoulders the best choice for Ritter given his high name recognition, his business-centric personal and professional record, the strong relationships he enjoys with several state Republicans, and his lack of a legislative record. The only polling I saw on prospective 2010 contests had Hick easily beating some of the GOP's best possible nominees including former Govenor Bill Ritter and outgoing congressman Tom Tancredo.
Now, there is no question that Bennett also possesses that final attribute, as he has never served in a state or federal legislative body. Prior to assuming his current position, he was ironically the chief of staff to Hickenlooper. That being said, I think Bennett is considerably weaker than Hick precisely because he has absolutely no name recognition. Hick would have started in his position well known right of the gate, and a very strong candidate to win a full term when the seat comes up in 2010.
Bennett will now have nearly two years to make a name for himself and build up his electoral viability across the expansive state. He will also likely be able to tap the national party and his status as incumbent to raise the boatloads of money necessary to run for U.S. Senate these days. Not to mention that with both Colorado moving further to the Democratic Party -- as evidenced by the Democrats capturing the governorship, both senate seats, the state legislature and the Third, Fourth, and Seventh congressional districts, all in the last few years -- and the shallow Republican bench in state, Bennett should, by all accounts, be able to win a full term without enormous problems.
Still, Democrats should be a little nervous and perhaps taken aback by the selection. Bennett starts his Senate tenure weak and totally unknown. Ritter's passing over Hickenlooper was foolish politically, and if some rumors are to be believed -- some state political observers surmise Hick was passed over because of lingering resentment for his flirtation with running against Ritter in the 2006 gubernatorial primary (in a contest he likely would have won) and then not endorsing Ritter until late --Ritter's decision was colored by the typical petty political vendettas that often dominate the decision-making of powerful leaders who should know better. In other words, all concerns may be moot if Bennett is able to conquer a weak GOP challenger in two years (see Tancredo, Tom), but these fears would not be terribly relevant if Ritter had made the smart political move. Only time will tell on this score, however. In my opinion, it is likely that Bennett was picked in part to preempt a Hickenlooper primary challenge, as Hick and Bennett remain close (at least from what I have read; though that relationship may not become frayed!).
One more thing on the appointment. In all of the articles coming out on the surprise Bennett pick, few failed to mention that Bennett is a Yale Law School alum, and that -- gasp! -- he was an editor at the Yale Law Journal. Can I ask why in God's name this matters? Who the [bleep] cares if this guy worked on a law review and why should this make him qualified to be a United States Senator? This really bugs me, and you see it a lot. One's pedigree is always a nice garnish in life, but I have come to believe that it means just about zero in determining whether he or she should hold something like high elective office. It is a joke, and it should not matter one iota. And all of this is coming from a guy who graduated from an Ivy League college. I am just sick and tired of huge reliance on one's membership on a law journal as some great indicator of brilliance or worthiness of life's success. And having worked on Capitol Hill, I know full well that Democrats are far guiltier of relying on pedigrees and fancy school degrees in making hires. It's awful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
