Bunning Theatens to Quit ... Then Denies

In the on-going saga that is Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning, we get another story today. Apparently while speaking before a fundraiser crowd in Washington, Bunning floated the possibility of just getting up and quitting before his term expires in January 2011 if the national GOP did not give him adequate support. According to a report in the Louisville Courier-Journal, Bunning wryly noted that if he did this, he would get the "last laugh" on national Republicans as the governor of Kentucky is currently a Democrat and he would presumably appoint a fellow Dem to fill out Bunning's term. Today, Bunning angrily denied that he ever said anything to that effect, denouncing his homestate paper in the process.

As evidenced by his continued angry comments directed towards the NRSC and its chair Senator John Cornyn, Bunning is harboring a lot of resentment for Cornyn's and others' attempts to ease the junior bluegrass Senator into retirement. Recently, he threatened to sue the NRSC unless it backed him. He genuinely seems primed to run again despite his age and other issues. As we have discussed in the past, this is great news for Democrats.

At this point, anything can happen in this contest. Bunning is committed to running again, but a primary challenge from somewhere seems more and more likely as Bunning seems more and more out of it. The relative strength and credibility of a potential primary foe would determine if Bunning could be toppled before November 2010. Should Bunning hang on for the general, he would be in big trouble, especially as his erratic behavior and outbursts continue. At this point, the best the NRSC can hope for is that a good primary challenge will be able to win without national backing. The NRSC might be forced to publicly back Bunning -- despite trying to recruit a different candidate already, drawing Bunning's ire -- but that does not mean that GOP power-players won't work behind the scenes to bolster a primary foe who would not be a sure-loser in a general.

We'll continue to follow this one closely, if for no other reason than its inherent comic value.

Obama Approvals Jump

A fresh Gallup poll finds that in the wake of his speech to Congress, President Obama's approval ratings jumped significantly after tailing off a bit last week.

February 18-20: 63% approve/24% disapprove
February 21-23: 59/25
February 24-26: 67/21

It seems that Obama got a nice boast from his nationally-televised speech at a time when it was sinking a bit, perhaps because of the stimulus fight in Congress. I think that it is fair to say that his approvals had been high already, but at +46, he is doing as well as a President can do. I guess the honeymoon period continues.

The split by party is pretty interesting

Democrats
Feb. 18-20: 89% approve
Feb. 21-23: 86%
Feb. 24-26: 90%

Independents
62-54-62

Republicans
27-27-42

As you can see, Obama's most recent jump gave from a nice rise among indies and Republicans, while he still enjoys near-universal support from Democrats. I don't think there is much chance that Obama will have high numbers from GOPers for too long, but if he can maintain his standing with independents, that may not matter.

For its part, the weekly Daily Kos/R2K poll finds that Obama's latest split is 71/25 (+46), after being 69/26 (+43) a week ago. The +46 mirrors Gallup's finding. Also of interest is that the approval ratings for congressional Dems went from 41/53 (-12) to 46/45 (+1) over the same time period, while congressional GOPers went from 18/70 (-52) to 17/68 (-51).

I think that these numbers confirm not just Obama's strength, but that his positive numbers are being imputed by many Americans to congressional Dems. Republicans in Congress, however, remain deeply unpopular. If these pitiful numbers persist at such low levels, GOP leadership might need to re-evaluate its guerilla tactics against the new administration. Personally, I would not expect that move even if GOP approval was 2/95, but it is something John Boehner, Eric Cantor and the boys should start pondering nonetheless.

Evaluating the House Stimulus Roll Call Vote

I wanted to write a post looking at some of the more surprising (or put less diplomatically, stupid) votes case by House Members in the stimulus conference vote. We all know by now that the Republicans voted in unison against the measure, but I think it is worth looking at some of the more stand-out votes on both sides of the aisle.

Noteworthy Democratic Votes

Democrats voting 'no' on both the initial vote and on the conference bill: Walt Minnick (ID-01), Bobby Bright (AL-02), Gene Taylor (MS-04), Heath Shuler (NC-11), Collin Peterson (MN-07), and Parker Griffith (AL-05).

For the most part, Democratic House leadership should not be too upset at these individuals, as most of them represent strongly Republican districts. Taylor is a very conservative Democrat and somewhat iconoclastic, but he represents one of the reddest districts in the Deep South (McCain won here 68-to-32), so it is tough for Democrats to ever criticize him, even if he is safe at home. Bright and Minnick were just barely elected last year (Bright by less than one percent and Minnick by less than two percent) in incredibly Republican areas. Leadership can't say anything about that. Griffith is also a freshman (he won by 52-46 in what was an R+6 district in Northern Alabama), but his district is slightly less red than the rest. Still, it would be hard for leadership to punish him in any way.

The last two names should draw the ire of Democrats. Peterson is very quirky, and he often votes with Republicans from his conservative Western Minnesota nest. This has been tolerated for some time, in part because the rural district is R+7 (according to the latest PVI), but Obama only lost here 50-to-47; in other words, this district is hardly Southern Mississippi. Furthermore, the seat is safe for Peterson until he retires (which he has threatened in the past). As the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Peterson should begin to watch himself a bit better, or as my friend wisely noted to me, he could face a Dingell problem down the road.

Ditto second-term Rep. Shuler, who voted against after winning 62% last year. I imagine the leadership is fuming at the Western North Carolina congressman right now, particularly when they consider Shuler's strength at home coupled with Obama's narrow 52-to-47 loss in the Eleventh District. Shuler, who is considering a run for Senate next year against Richard Burr might have really helped potential primary opponent state Attorney General Roy Cooper's case with national Dems with this vote.

Democrats voting 'aye' on the conference bill who come from districts that John McCain won last year: Marion Berry (AR-01); Vic Snyder (AR-02); Mike Ross (AR-04); Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01); Harry Mitchell (AZ-05); Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-08); John Salazar (CO-03); Betsy Markey (CO-04); Allen Boyd (FL-02); Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24); Jim Marshall (GA-08); Brad Ellsworth (IN-08); Baron Hill (IN-09); Ben Chandler (KY-06); Charlie Melancon (LA-03); Frank Kratovil (MD-01); Travis Childers (MS-01); Ike Skelton (MO-04); Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL); Harry Teague (NM-02); Mike McMahon (NY-13); Eric Massa (NY-29); Mike McIntyre (NC-07); Charlie Wilson (OH-6); John Boccieri (OH-16); Zach Space (OH-18); Dan Boren (OK-02); Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03); Jason Altmire (PA-04); Chris Carney (PA-10); John Murtha (PA-12); Tim Holden (PA-17); John Spratt (SC-05); Stephanie Hersheth-Sandlin (SD-AL); Lincoln Davis (TN-04); Bart Gordon (TN-06); John Tanner (TN-08); Tom Periello (VA-05); Rick Boucher (VA-09); Alan Mollohan (WV-01); Nick Rahall (WV-03); Chet Edwards (TX-17) and Jim Matheson (UT-02).

This list includes a pretty good mix of veterans representing pretty red districts, old-timers representing very red districts, and freshman from a smattering of both.

Salazar, Hill, Marshall and Edwards deserve some special recognition because they are usually loyal even though they have district where they could always face a tough contest. Freshman and young members Kirkpatrick, Markey, Kratovil, Childers, Teague, Dahlkemper, Carney, and Periello should all be remembered later for casting what was a tough vote. Most of these names are young members who represent red districts, especially Childers, Teague, Periello, and Kratovil. They all showed some guts, and I am guessing their loyalty was noted by Pelosi and Hoyer.

Noteworthy Republican Votes

Republicans voting 'no' on the conference bill who come from districts that Barack Obama won last year: Dan Lundgren (CA-03); Elton Gallegly (CA-24); Buck McKeon (CA-25); David Dreier (CA-26); Ken Calvert (CA-44); Mary Bono-Mack (CA-45); Tom Campbell (CA-48); Brian Bilbray (CA-50); Mike Castle (DE-AL); Bill Young (FL-10); Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18); Tom Latham (IA-4); Peter Roskam (IL-6); Mark Kirk (IL-10); Judy Biggert (IL-13); Don Manzullo (IL-16); Aaron Schock (IL-18); Joseph Cao (LA-02); Dave Camp (MI-04); Fred Upton (MI-06); Mike Rogers (MI-08); Thad McCotter (MI-11); Erik Paulsen (MN-03); Lee Terry (NE-02); Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02); Leonard Lance (NJ-07); Peter King (NY-03); John McHugh (NY-23); Pat Tiberi (OH-12); Steven LaTourette (OH-14); Jim Gerlach (PA-06); Charlie Dent (PA-15); Randy Forbes (VA-04); Frank Wolf (VA-10); Dave Reichert (WA-08); Paul Ryan (WI-01) and Tom Petri (WI-05).

This is another interesting list to pore over. Some of these votes are not only understandable from the rep's perspective, but they make cold political sense. There are also a lot of stupid votes here, many of them cast by short-sighted Members who could face a problem later for their hyper-partisanship.

Freshman: Not a lot of names here, mostly because the GOP did not win much last year. When it comes to freshman, they pretty much have to obey leadership early on or risk excommunication to crummy committees and other slights. Additionally, with men like Paulsen and Lance, they won their first terms so easily, they probably feel emboldened to oppose Obama even if their constituents voted for him. The same applies to someone like Schock, but he should be careful: his district is moderate and it is in Obama's backyard. Ditto second-termer Peter Roskam. I've already talked about Cao: he's a dope.

Long-timers who have grown fat and stupid: There are several people here who should know better. Mike Castle should be careful. His free ride could end at any time coming from Delaware. He should reflect on the lesson of Bill Roth in 2000.

Thad McCotter is just too partisan and too dumb to do anything against leadership. That he got 51% last year against a guy with no money should have taught him something, but clearly it did not. Mike Rogers won easily last year, but only because he had not major opposition. His distict is blue, but I think this vote is easily explained by (1) Rogers is a partisan bomb-thrower; and (2) he wants to run for governor next year and will have a very tough primary.

LoBiando has been safe in South Jersey for a long time, but a reckoning could finally be coming if Dems recruit a strong challenger to him. He should learn to shape up, but I doubt he will.

Both Tibieri and LaTourrette need to be very careful. Tibieri in particular has had a very conservative record in a district Obama easily won. It is coming time that both will have stronger Democratic challengers at some point.

Gerlach almost lost against a nobody, but I figure he is thinking about his own 2010 gunernatorial run (and primary) too.

Finally, even though Frank Wolf easily won, his district is changing very fast. He may retire before it is dark blue, but this vote won't help his standing. Randy Forbes is too crazy and arrogant to vote any other way (i.e. against the party line), but Obama's win in his district was an amazing occurence that bodes well for Dems in Virginia. Lee Terry clearly thinks Obama's performance in Omaha last year was a fluke.

The rest of the names can certainly get away with a vote like this because they are so insulated in their district. That being said, a look at this list reveals that if Democrats decided in 2011 to finally get tough with redistricting in California and Illinois, they could wipe out close to 10 Republicans (hi Judy Biggert and David Dreier) who have been getting away with conservative records in moderate districts. This is an issue I will post separately on soon.

Delay Delay Delay Franken

In complete candor, I can't say I blame Republicans for pushing Norm Coleman's court case as a means of delaying Democrat Al Franken's ascension to the U.S. Senate. After all, with one extra vote in their pockets, Democrats will have an even easier to time of passing their legislation, needing only one Republican of the Collins-Snowe-Specter troika to switch sides to overcome any filibuster on key legislation. For this reason, after reading this Politico piece of GOP efforts to bolster Coleman, I really can't disagree with the Republicans, at least on the tactical political merits.

All of that being said, it is a near-certainty that Al Franken will be seated in the Senate. With 58 votes right now, Democrats will never allow Coleman to be seated, even if he somehow is able to change the outcome -- currently showing a 225-vote win for Franken -- in court. It just ain't happening. If that were to happen, Democrats would bottle the issue up until the end of time. Also, as the article notes, the body in charge of examining any seating issue, the Senate Rules Committee, is chaired by one Charles Schumer, one of the shrewest men in Congress today, the former head of the DSCC, and one of the most bare-knuckled partisans in recent political history. In the immortal written words of Stan Lee, 'nuff said.

Months ago I noted that it was Coleman's choice if and when to bow out. I posted that calling on a man to just give up after losing by less than 0.01% of the vote was something I would not do. While I still feel that way, it has been several months, and Norm Coleman has to decide whether he wants to keep pushing a fruitless case and being a pawn of his former colleagues. Then again, maybe he has no choice, and if he gives up to easily, he won't have a cushy landing as a lobbyist via his GOP friends. In Washington, DC, I would not dismiss that possibility.

This one is moving closer to a conclusion, likely with Al Franken occupying a regal desk on the floor of the United States Senate. Who would have seen that coming a few years ago?

Fitzgerald Stays

One story that was buried in all of the stimulus discussion this week was of the announcement that President Obama will retain Patrick Fitzgerald as United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).

Regular T2L readers will recall we debated the question of whether or not Obama would keep Fitzgerald on once he was sworn in. While we noted that Presidents nearly always bring in entirely new slates of U.S. Attorneys -- to stock the important posts with loyal party members and to give key patronage slots to different state power players, among other reasons -- we decided in the end that Obama would probably keep Fitzgerald simply to ensure continuity in the Blagojevich case and to avoid any criticism that would have likely come Obama's way if he had booted Fitzgerald. The move simply gibed with Obama's cautious nature, so Fitzgerald's retainment really should not surprise anyone.

Now Obama has to hope that Fitzgerald lets the Rezko investigation die.

Dodd in Danger? Nope

One of my favorite political writers, Steve Kornacki of the New York Observer, has a piece this week wondering aloud if recent weak poll numbers portend trouble for Connecticut Senators Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman. While I have already recently written on Lieberman, I wanted to say a quick word on Dodd.

While the recent Quinnipiac poll gives Dodd a ghastly 41/48 approval rating, I think there is almost no danger that the senior senator will lose next year, minus some crazy scandal coming out. There are three simple reasons for this. First, Dodd is a state institution in Connecticut, and even if his numbers are low now, and even if they are low in 18 months, I find it hard to see Connecticut voters tossing him to the curb. Second, Connecticut remains an ardently blue state, and it has not elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since Lowell Weicker won in 1982. Third, and perhaps most important is that the GOP bench in Connecticut is basically barren. As we like to say here, you can't beat something with nothing, and the state GOP has essentially nothing. Former Reps. Chris Shays and Rob Simmons might be good nominees, but just remember they lost House races in 2008 and 2006, so I can't envision them winning a statewide contest

If ultra-popular Gov. Jodi Rell were to shock the establishment in Hartford and run for Senate, then maybe Dodd could be in trouble. But until that happens -- and I think it remains highly unlikely as she will probably run for governor again -- Dodd is safe.

Specter's Strength

Quinnipiac was out with a poll earlier this week on Arlen Specter which I wanted to briefly reflect on. While the poll provides some initial numbers which appear quite poor for the incumbent Republican, closer reflections shows that Specter has considerable strengths as he seeks a sixth term next year.

Does Specter deserve to be re-elected?

Overall: 40% yes/43% no (-3)

Among Republicans: 42/42 (+0)
Among Democrats: 41/42 (-1)
Among Independents: 36/45 (-9)

Among Men: 41/48 (-7)
Among Women: 38/38 (+0)

These are not good numbers for any incumbent, especially a five-term one who has been involved in his state's politics for decades. Interestingly, Specter's re-elect number is basically identical with voters of both major parties (and it tanks with indies). Both Republican and Democratic voters are equally ambivalent about sending Specter back to Washington in 2011. Additionally, Specter seems strongest with women, which is good for him because he has stoked mixed feelings with many women over the years (traced back to the early 90s, when in 1992 he was almost toppled by a female Democratic candidate over his harsh questioning of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings).

Yet, as bad as these numbers may look at first glance, let's check out the senator's approval ratings.

Specter approvals

Overall: 56% approve/30% disapprove (+26)

Among Republicans: 55/33 (+22)
Among Democrats: 62/26 (+36)
Among Independents: 49/35 (+14)

Among Men: 56/34 (+22)
Among Women: 55/27 (+28)

These are pretty good numbers, but what sticks out at me is the breakdown by party ID. Specter is at a mediocre +22 with his own party. This is not terribly surprising since Specter has always tried to carve out a centrist path in his career, often earning the ire of conservative Republicans. Dissatisfaction among Pennsylvania Republicans came to a head in 2004 when Specter faced a strong primary challenge from then-Rep. Pat Toomey, and Specter barely won by just 51-to-49.

What is striking is how well Specter does with Democrats. That a Republican senator enjoys a +36 rating from Democratic voters in this day and age of extreme partisanship is pretty impressive. Republicans may not universally love one of their own, but many state Dems clearly have an affinity for the old codger.

What does this mean? In my opinion, it shows that Specter is in strong shape to win another term so long as he is not ousted in a primary. If Specter is at +36 right now, and he makes it to the general election, he should beat any Pennsylvania Democrat short of Ed Rendell, who is almost certainly not going to run against his friend and former boss Specter.

And unlike in 2004, a strong Republican primary challenge has not yet fully materialized. It may well still happen and we need to stay tuned, but until it occurs, Arlen Specter should feel pretty good for himself if he makes it to November 2010. Fogetting all of the DSCC's bluster and financial largesse, as we have already noted, the state Democratic bench is pretty weak, and it might be hard to win this seat unless Specter is beaten by another Toomey-type challenger.

As for Specter's weak re-elect numbers, while I think they are absolutely something the incumbent should worry about, they are not that terrible a concern. These days, voters are simply angry at politicians and Congress as an institution, so that kind of general, loaded question is going to get a lot of people calling for their unnamed rep or senator to be tossed out of office. Besides, I remember all last year, a strong majority of voters said Frank Lautenberg was too old to continue running and didn't deserve another term, but then he ended up winning by over a dozen points. Granted, New Jersey is quirky and the DSCC may aid whoever ends up facing Specter more than the NRSC ponied up to Dick Zimmer, but I think the comparison is valuable and certain valid.

There is a reason I put Pennsylvania at #7 in our rankings: I am not convinced in Specter's dire vulnerability or Dems' ability to recruit a winner. These poll results only strengthen this opinion.

"But No One Read It"

Perhaps the most foolish nonsense being circulated by many opponents of the just-passed stimulus is that no Member of Congress read the entire 1,000+ page piece of legislation before voting on it. For anyone who buys this argument, allow me to point out that as sad as it may sound, few Members of Congress ever entirely read a long bill before it is passed, particularly if leaders are pressed for time to act, as was the case here. Therefore, these criticisms are completely meritless and meaningless.

While in a perfect democracy our elected representatives and senators would read, pore over, study, ponder, and debate every syllable of a bill like something out of the founding days or a Frank Capra movie, this simply does not happen. Members don't have the time (and many do not possess the faculties) to read bills. It does not help there are literally thousands of proposed bills every Congress.

Is this ideal? No, it isn't, but that's how it is, and really, it does not matter nor is it a legitimate argument to make against this legislation or many other bills. Republicans are just trying to kick up dirt and de-legitimize the stimulus before it even reaches the President's desk.

Quote of the Week, II

"The President's relations with the GOP will improve as he learned the hard way that he could not cede all this control to the Speaker."
--Republican Rep. Fred Upton on President Obama received no Republican support in the House of Representatives for his stimulus.

Yeah, right. Note that Obama reached out personally to Rep. Upton, and hoped to get his vote before the jackals in the GOP House leadership convinced him that partisanship was much more important than working together to fix the economy. And all was right with the universe!

How many individual Dem House Members did President Bush reach out to in comity when he was President and his party held a majority in Congress? Let's see: add the three, subtract the one, carry the five....er....um....oh, I got it: exactly ZERO!

The only lesson Obama should learn from this debacle, if he is smart, is that Republicans have zero interest in working with him on anything. With strong majorities for his party in Congress, and personal approval ratings which remains high, Obama needs to exercise his muscle, and push aside a regional GOP which only cares about arond 10 states.

Quote of the Week

“Republicans are Republicans again."
-Rep Jeff Flake (AZ-06), proudly beaming after he and his Republican unanimously voted against the stimulus package.

I guess what Flake means is that Republicans are back to being obstructionists while offering zero ideas of their own in the name of partisanship, all while Rome burns.

I had no clue congressional Republicans ever offered anything else.

Political Dumbass(es) of the Week

The deserving party or parties for this award are quite easy: congressional Republicans, but specifically one congressional freshman who I will get to below. You see, the House GOP determined a while ago to unanimously stand together and courageously vote 'no' against President Obama's stimulus plan. No, they did not offer any other substantive or cogent ideas (minus more tax cuts, of course), but that's irrelevant to them. All that matters is trying to harm or humiliate the new President any way they can. While I can't say that I would do things exactly differently if I were a typical rank-and-file Member, exercising this strategy so early, so strongly, and in such a recklessly partisan way is a little much.

Yet, while it is easy to highlight foolish Republican obstructionism, I thought that one individual Member deserved special recognition for his political idiocy. That person is Rep. Joseph Cao (LA-02). Cao, who was elected in one of the biggest flukes in recent political history when he edged out perpetually-indicted William Jefferson in this New Orleans-centric district, has shown immediate signs that he has absolutely no idea what he is doing, and he has no intention of trying to win a second term next year. Here is the money part of a very telling article in Politico:

But Cao remained the most compelling storyline. The Vietnamese lawmaker shocked the political universe by knocking off indicted Democratic Rep. William Jefferson last year in the overwhelmingly Democratic New Orleans district.

He told reporters an hour or two before the vote that he was strongly considering a vote in favor of the stimulus measure after rejecting an earlier version – “At this point, I’m leaning ‘yes,’ but I’m not absolutely certain.” He reasoned that his heavily Democratic district could use the money with many of his constituents still struggling to rebound from Hurricane Katrina.

Beforehand, Cao acknowledged that Republican leaders had put “pressure” on him to oppose the package, and the party’s chief deputy whip, California Rep. Kevin O. McCarthy, stood near Cao during the entire vote.

“They encouraged me to vote ‘no,’ but they understand the needs of my district,” Cao said.

There is a lot here. Cao pulled a classic flip-flop. Okay, no biggie: cowardly Members on both sides do that every day. What is more salient, at least to me, is not that the House GOP leadership made the determination early on that their entire membership would vote 'no', but that someone like Cao would actually fall in line!

Memo to Rep. Cao: If you have an desire to win again, stop listening to your leadership! Your victory had NOTHING to do with the national GOP or the NRCC. Wisely, they had no idea you had any shot, and they did not do anything to help you win. You are a fluke, and as a fluke, you have no attachment to the whims and controls of your leadership. Sure, you face a near-impossible task next year, but at the same time, your unique circumstances allow you to vote however you want, which means you need to vote in a way to please your overwhemingly Democratic district, not what your Texas/Alabama/Georgia caucus wants. I will bet you a dollar that Nancy Pelosi was not upset when fellow freshman Rep. Bobby Bright voted 'no' yesterday, and his district is only half as conservative as your's is liberal (something like R+13 to D+28).

The fact is that GOP leadership used Cao as a pawn to bolster their own standing and to build a united conservative front against Obama and the Democrats. For 95% of their membership coming from the South, Idaho, Utah and crazy California, that's all well and good, but for the almost extinct Republicans representing Democratic districts, that is not helpful. Cao is an extreme example, of course. He is a fluke, a man with the political savvy of a sea sponge, so I can't fault him for being stupid and now understanding that he is being used as a pawn. But if GOP rising star Kevin McCarthy had stood next to me the whole vote, I would have voted 'aye' and stared him right in the eye. Cao should understand that when fall 2010 comes around, these jokers will not be spending a nickel on his re-election with dozens of other opportunities elsewhere and Cao down 30 points in the polls.

Sadly, Rep. Cao did not get that, and for this reason, he gets to share the T2L Political Dumbass of the Week award with the fellas running the H.M.S. Titanic, er, I mean the GOP House caucus. Great job.

Republicans Emboldened

Two articles out this weekend on a theme we touched on in our last post, namely that as President Obama's stimulus has hit rocky shoals and floundered, congressional Republicans have become increasingly emboldened, growing even in gleeful as they move to in united opposition to the President's plan. While this is not welcome news to the new President or the Democratically-controlled Congress, in a way it is a positive for Democrats. It can be viewed this way because it makes clear, very early on in the new administration -- really, just weeks into this new presidency and new Congress -- that Obama should not count on great cooperation from congressional Republicans for many of his key initiatives. From that perspective, last week's problems should be a learning experience for the blue team.

Coming out the November elections, the second straight brutal cycle that saw the GOP lose both houses of Congress and the White House, Republicans were dispirited, to put it mildly. Facing a hugely-popular President and strengthened Democratic majorities in Congress, Republicans were at a crossroads with no real plan to go forward, at least outwardly. As the two articles make clear, the stimulus has provided GOPers with that missing purpose. Republicans' renewed purpose is simple: oppose the President everywhere, with steely resolve and jubilant opposition.

From the Examiner:

They took a beating in November, but now, in the stimulus fight, Republicans are smiling again.

You see it all over Capitol Hill, in the hallways, the hearing rooms, the gathering spots. Republicans, coming off a devastating, across-the-board electoral defeat, are … happy. Being in opposition, after eight years of a Republican presidency and 12 years of GOP rule in Congress, suits many of them just fine.

Similarly, from the Washington Post:

After giving the package zero votes in the House, and 0with their counterparts in the Senate likely to provide in a crucial procedural vote today only the handful of votes needed to avoid a filibuster, Republicans are relishing the opportunity to make a big statement. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) suggested last week that the party is learning from the disruptive tactics of the Taliban, and the GOP these days does have the bravado of an insurgent band that has pulled together after a big defeat to carry off a quick, if not particularly damaging, raid on the powers that be.

"We're so far ahead of where we thought we'd be at this time," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), one of several younger congressmen seeking to lead the party's renewal. "It's not a sign that we're back to where we need to be, but it's a sign that we're beginning to find our voice. We're standing on our core principles, and the core principle that suffered the most in recent years was fiscal conservatism and economic liberty. That was the tallest pole in our tent, and we took an ax to it, but now we're building it back."

The second-ranking House Republican, Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), put it more bluntly. "What transpired . . . and will give us a shot in the arm going forward is that we are standing up on principle and just saying no," he said.

Okay, let's be clear: a lot of these kinds of quotes from happy Republicans are garbage. Obviously, sitting in the minority, Republicans want to do their best to put on a smiley face and act like everything is going great in their caucuses. That's all well and good. But the fact is that the stimulus mess has allowed Republicans to at least gather up their bearings and unite together after a difficult election. At least right now, with Obama's most important legislation coming forward to Congress for its approval in the coming weeks and months.

Again, this should all be a wake-up call to Obama and his advisers. Republicans enjoy being an opposition party, and more, they are happy to be free of the burden of President Bush. As a result, the President should understand that while making small gestures to engender bipartisanship are great, he is going to have to get tough to get his measures into law or else other things will get bogged down like the stimulus, similarly weaking Obama and spending the precious political capital he worked so hard to amass.

Obama Must Quickly Learn Hardball

Let me get this straight. The long-running stimulus negotiation, which effectively shut down and held the entire process hostage, was done in order to get three Senate Republicans on board: Arlen Specter and the Maine twins? You can't make this up.

I am all for President Obama's decision to actively reach out to woo House and Senate Republicans on this and future initiatives. It is an admirable way to break the partisan gridlock which bloomed and festered under the Bush administration. I think Obama should continue to make nice gestures to his political adversaries in ways as simple as calling individual Republicans, going to speak with them about legislation, and giving them freer and friendlier access to the White House. Generally, no bad can come of simple niceties.

All of that being said, if this stimulus mess teaches the new President anything, it is that he cannot hang his hat on working with Republicans on anything important. He should continue trying, but if that avenue seems to be going nowhere, he should forget it and move forward with a plain majority from his side. In the first major initiative of his presidency, Obama reached out to the other side in ways his predecessor never reached to Democrats, and apparently what it got him was zero votes in the House of Representatives, and three votes in the U.S. Senate. These are not the signs of a group that wants to work with you or give any leeway.

And let me make clear that I do not fault the Republicans here. Politically, their obstructionism makes sense. If they help pass this measure, they are fully tied to it, making Democrats less culpable in future elections should it fail. However, if they join the Democrats in wide support and it succeeds in its purpose -- namely, providing a vital boast to the American economy -- they realize that President Obama and in turn the Democrats will get most of the credit, and not their party. Therefore, from their perspective, what's the point of supporting this bill?

That is all well and good, and I respect that, but President Obama and his advisers need to realize that the thought calculus the elephants are computing. Obama should thicken his skin and skull very fast, and ram through what he needs to push through quickly. As this debacle has proven, once again, when you let any matter sit and let opposition build, it is never a good thing for ultimate passage. We all knew this bill was going to pass way or another. The White House should have gauged GOP support, and when it found none, it should have pushed the stimuls through both houses right way, even if not a single Republican voted 'aye.' Once this bill is signed, how can Democrats claim it was passed with bipartisan support when only three Senate Republicans endorse it? You can rest assured that when it does pass, GOP leadership -- McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, et al. -- will be front and center bashing this stimulus. For all of his work in trying to cobble together a bipartisan super-majority, Obama ended up basically empty-handed, politically weakened mere weeks into his administration, and his bill is now watered-down to boot.

Over the life of this administration, Republicans have basically no reason to work with this President. Making the future of bipartisan endeavors even more unlikely, the GOP caucus in both bodies is now essentially bereft of any moderates -- all that is left now are hardline conservatives who believes the GOP lost badly in the last two cycles because it was not conservative enough. This is not a party that will be amenable to playing nice. The GOP knows that it cannot fell Obama now with his high approval ratings fresh off electoral victory, so it will engage in a war of attrition where it tries to bring down Obama and the Democrats with a thousand little cuts. You can score the last week as a series of small cuts.

Obama needs to realize this, and fast. Little gestures are one thing, but he must learn a new game: hardball.

James Whitmore

America has lost a fine actor with the passing of the great James Whitmore. While I am not familiar with all of Whitmore many great roles, I know him well from a memorable part in my favorite movie of all time -- and the best film of all time -- "The Shawshank Redemption", where he played the doomed prison librarian Brooks Hatlan. Whitmore also played Harry Truman in the famous one-man play, and later one-man film about the life of Truman, "Give 'Em Hell Harry." For his portrayal in the latter production, Whitmore became the only man to receive an Oscar nomination for acting in a film with only one actor.

Rest in peace, Brooks.

Lie of the Day

"Nothing has changed since the governor addressed this issue the last time.... She has made it clear to the Obama administration she is not interested in an appointment at this time."
-Liz Boyd, spokeswoman to Democratic Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm on the possibility of Granholm potentially accepting a future appointment to the United States Supreme Court.

That might be the most laughable denial from a politician or a politician's flack I have heard in a while. You can set your watch to it: if Jennifer Granholm were ever offered lifetime appointment to the High Court, she would physically walk over her entire family and all of her friends and loved ones to get the job. Heck, she'd knock them all to the floor if that is what it took. This is not Postmaster General, it's the Supreme Court, and this denial is typical political baloney.

T2L's 2010 Senate Rankings

Today we will post our first rankings for the 2010 Senate races. It may be almost two years out, but it is never too early to spit out amateur political prognostications.

Interestingly, as we've noted here in the past, the 2010 Senate map has looked favorable for Democrats for some time. In part, this is because including special contests, 19 of the seats that are up are currently held by Republicans, and 17 are currently held by Democrats. However, the situation has become much more dicey for Republicans because of a quick succession of retirements of GOP Senators to start the year, nearly all of them creating great opportunities for Democrats to score pick-ups. With Mel Martinez (Florida), Kit Bond (Missouri), George Voinovich (Ohio), Sam Brownback (Kansas), Judd Gregg (New Hampshire) (he is not actually retiring; he is going over to the executive branch to become Secretary of Commerce), and potentially others heading for the exits, the key inquiry is no longer whether Republicans will lose even more seats -- after losing a net six in 2006, and eight more in 2008 (including Al Franken) -- but now how many they will shed in 2010.

You won't get any dispute from me that the Republicans have caught some bad breaks this cycle with these retirements, but most of them were actually expected. Furthermore, as we talked about here last year, retirements are going to happen in a body like the Senate when one party is facing a long exile in the minority, which is exactly what Republicans are staring at today. While a senator lives the Life of Riley, for someone like Kit Bond or George Voinovich -- men who have been in politics for decades and are getting long in the tooth -- going from a committee chairmanship to a member in a caucus of 41 is a big change, especially with a new Democratic President in the Oval Office. Consequently, no one should be too surprised that we saw a quick wave of retirements early on: a trickle always becomes a deluge, and really, the retiring members did the right thing by giving their party optimal time to coalesce around a new nominee and fundraise for 2010.

With us just sitting in early February 2009, the field has many unsettled patches, either because we may be waiting to hear from a few more potential retirees on whether they will run again or because the nomination fields for specific seats are unresolved. As with most of the other rankings -- most notably in The Fix blog on the Washington Post webpage or Nate Silver's new Senate counter -- these ratings rank the seats in order of those most likely to switch sides.

(1) New Hampshire (open: Sen. Judd Gregg (R) is not running for a fourth term). With Judd Gregg's nomination to become Secretary of Commerce, this race shoots to the very top of the Senate lines. The Granite State has been moving heavily towards the Democrats over the last two cycles, and this seat represents the final key statewide office out of the Democrats' hands. With the popular Gregg off the ballot, and his replacement Bonnie Newman declaring that she will not run next year (or even endorse a nominee), Republicans will have a tough time holding this seat. Look for Democrats to unify around second-term Rep. Paul Hodes, who declared for the seat almost immediately after Gregg's nomination was officially announced. Hodes' fellow Dem Rep. Carol Shea-Porter would be wise to stay out and be content with the seat she has, a post that was lucky to win in 2006. For Republicans, the bench is fairly thin. Their best nominee may be former Sen. John Sununu, who was just ousted last November. Sununu, whose father was governor and chief of staff to President George H.W. Bush enjoys universal name recognition in the state, but it remains to be seen if New Hampshire voters would send him back to Washington after decisively rejecting him months ago. Former Gov. Steve Merrill and state GOP power-broker Tom Rath are also possibilities. The fact is that this seat would have been highly contested even if Gregg had run again. Some Dems are still smarting that Gov. John Lynch did not replace Gregg with a Democrat as part of his deal with the outgoing Senator, but with Gregg gone, the seat, at least for now, leans blue anyway for 2010. So, in the longterm Democrats should be very pleased with the hand they have been dealt in New Hampshire.

(2) Ohio (open: Sen. George Voinovich (R) is not running for a third term). Some Republicans were actually pleased when Voinovich announced he was retiring. First, these people likely saw Voinovich's sagging poll numbers over the last year, and feared that he could be picked off. Second, many Republicans welcome the opportunity to replace one of the more moderate members of the Senate GOP caucus with a more conservative Ohio Republican. The GOP got just that in former Rep. Rob Portman, a high-ranking member of the Bush administration that the state and national party establishment has rallied around as their standard-bearer in this race. Republicans like Portman because of his strong conservatism, and also because he will be a strong fundraiser, taking away one concern that always exists with candidates. At this point, Democrats have not settled on a nominee, and in fact we are not even sure yet which potential pols will enter the fray. Right now, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, and Rep. Tim Ryan are the biggest names out there. There are reports that Fisher wants to run, and popular Gov. Ted Strickland has begun making moves to clear the field. If Strickland is indeed trying to do this, then I would expect Brunner and Ryan to quietly drop out of sight and give a clear field to Fisher. While I do not think Fisher is the best candidate -- he is not young like Ryan, and he has lost some previous statewide runs before becoming state Attorney General and then Strickland's LG -- I think Dems should be slightly favored regardless of who in this group becomes the nominee. First, Ohio has been trending slightly Democratic in recent cycles, which automatically favors the "D" nominee. Second, Portman's work as George W. Bush's trade rep and then his head of OMB is the worst kind of baggage to have. Portman will run for his life away from his ties to Bush, but his most recent jobs will be used heavily against him by Democrats, and with the economy the way it is, that won't be helpful to his candidacy. Third, while admittedly none of the troika of Fisher, Brunner or Ryan enjoy high statewide name recognition, neither does Portman, who was a longtime congressman from just southwestern Ohio in the Cincinnati suburbs. Fourth, having the ultra popular Strickland at the top of the 2010 ballot will only help whoever Dems nominate. I fully expect Strickland to romp to a second term, even if former Rep. John Kasich or former Sen. Mike DeWine decide to run against him.

(3) Missouri (open: Sen. Kit Bond (R) is not running for a fifth term). I can't sit here and tell that like New Hampshire and Ohio, Dems will win this seat because Missouri is trending blue: it isn't. While Obama did very well here, he just fell short in capturing the state. Dems were also beaten in two vigorous challenges to take Republican-held congressional seats. Democrats control every statewide office today except for this seat and the Lieutenant Governorship, so clearly Missouri is a state Democrats can win in. I guess my point is that Missouri is no blue state. However, the reason I am bullish about Democrats' chances here can be traced to two words: Robin Carnahan. In Carnahan, Democrats have the strongest nominee of either party, and as a result, she should be considered the favorite, albeit narrowly given the red bent of the state. Carnahan, who was overwhelmingly re-elected Secretary of State last year (62-36), is very well liked in the state and she enjoys universal name recognition from her father who was governor (and tragicially died in a 2000 plane crash), her mother who was a U.S. Senator, and her brother who is currently the congressman from the Third District. While the Democrats have cleared the field to support Carnahan, the Republican field is completely unsettled, with several political heavyweight looking at running, including former House Majority Whip Rep. Roy Blunt, former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman, Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, former Sen. Jim Talent and outgoing U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway. With all these names looking to run, I would expect a primary of some sort, and this cannot help Republicans in their quest to hold the seat.

(4) Kentucky (Sen. Jim Bunning (R) is vowing to run for a third term). Right now, Kentucky is a bit of a weird situation because we don't know if Jim Bunning will run again. By all accounts, the 77-year old Hall of Fame pitcher should hang up his glove. In 1998, then-Rep. Bunning edged out fellow Rep. Scotty Baesler by 0.5% to head to the Senate, and in 2004, he barely beat unknown state Sen. Dan Mongiardo by 51-to-49 while President Bush was carrying Kentucky by 20 points. During the latter campaign, Bunning behaved erratically: he said his opponent looked like one of Saddam Hussein's sons, he erroneously claimed his wife had been assaulted at a public event by Mongiardo supporters, and he refused to go to a debate in person, instead attending via satellite from the Republican National Committee where he may have been using notes of some kind. After 2004, many people -- including this author -- naturally assumed that Bunning would serve his six years and quietly retire. Well, it appears that Bunning has other plans. Despite having barely any money in the bank, Bunning has repeatedly said he is running again. When NRSC head John Cornyn discussed Bunning's retirement with reporters, Bunning responded that Cornyn "is either deaf, or he didn't listen very well." National Republicans want Bunning out because he has raised no money, his poll numbers have been consistently in the mid-to-low 40s -- awful territory for any incumbent -- and his behavior and age raise questions about whether he can wage a brutal campaign. However, how this race will turn out may depend more on the Democratic side than on whether Bunning retires. Right now, state Attorney General Jack Conway, State Auditor Crit Luallen, Rep. Ben Chandler, and Mongiardo, now the Lieutenant Governor are all looking at running. Mongiardo has already announced, Conway and Luallen have said they won't both run, and Chandler is still a wild card. Chandler would be the Dems' best nominee because he has universal statewide name recognition, he would be able to fundraise well, and his House district is situated in a key swing part of the state. That being said, any of the other possible nominees would be very strong. Interestingly, Kentucky really has a good Democratic bench. A key issue remains whether the primary field will be clear or contested. I think that if Chandler decides to get in, he would clear it. To make a long story short, here is how match-ups would look:

Bunning-Chandler: Chandler favored by a bit
Bunning-Luallen: Luallen slightly favored
Bunning-Conway: Toss-up
Bunning: Mongiardo: Toss-up

If Bunning decides to retire, he will be immediately replaced by Secretary of State Trey Grayson, an ambitious pol who is seen as a big rising star in the GOP. If Grayson is the GOP nominee:

Grayson-Chandler: Chandler very slightly favored
Grayson-Luallen/Conway/Mongiardo: Grayson slightly favored

(5) Florida (open: Sen. Mel Martinez (R) is not running for a second term). It may be surprising that an open seat in a swing state like Florida is not higher up on this list, at least appearing before Missouri and Kentucky. Yet, given the state of the Democratic field, the prospects for this seat flipping may not be fabulous. For Democrats, only Rep. Kendrick Meek and state Sen. Dan Gelber are in. Rep. Ron Klein is said to be seriously considering running. This field is not great as it is bereft of any political heavyweights or individuals who have already won statewide. State CFO Alex Sink, Dems' strongest contender and the party's only statewide elected official (minus Sen. Bill Nelson), surprisingly decided not to run, disappointing many in the party. Some people have speculated Sink's move was because popular GOP Gov. Charlie Crist may enter this contest. National Republicans have been lobbying Crist to run instead of going for a second term in Tallahassee, and if Crist were to run, the race would be over. Crist is extremely well-liked in Florida, and he would be an easy winner over Meek (no way a shrewd pol like Klein runs if Crist is in). If Crist does not run, the race is likely a total toss-up. Klein would be the best of the existing bunch (though, to be fair, I know very little about Gelber's abilities and he is apparently well-regarded), but I wonder if a South Florida Rep. like Klein or Meek can do well enough in the Central Florida, much less North Florida to win statewide. Without Crist, the GOP field is about equally cloudy, with names like Rep. Connie Mack, former State House Speaker Marco Rubbio, and others being mentioned. Still, even if Crist is out, I don't love this contest right now from the Democrats' perspective simply because their field seems weak to me, even though I have a lot of respect for Ron Klein. We should give the fields more time to develop before we draw stronger conclusions.

(6) North Carolina (Sen. Richard Burr (R) is running for a second term). At this time last year, I thought very little of Democrats' chances of beating either Elizabeth Dole in 2008 or Richard Burr two years later. While both of them were in their first terms and North Carolina had been showing some signs that Dems remained competitive in the state, I believed that both conservatives would hold their posts without too much trouble. What a difference a year makes. In November, a previously unknown state senator named Kay Hagan badly thrashed Dole, and today I think Democrats have a very good chance of toppling Burr as well, assuming they can recruit the right candidate. For those real big inside baseball political watchers, this is the Senate seat that has famously switched hands seven times since longtime incumbent Sam Ervin retired in 1974. Burr, who has compiled one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate so far in this young Congress, is sporting some uninspiring personal splits in fresh polling from Public Policy Polling based in his state and R2K (47/46). Perhaps more troubling, PPP found Burr trailing North Carolina Attorney Roy Cooper in a prospective 2010 general election match-up (an R2K/Daily Kos poll gave Burr a slim two-point edge over Cooper). Even before these polls came out, it was generally agreed that Cooper was the Democrats' best option. Cooper is well-known in the state from his multiple successful AG campaigns and his time in the legislature, not to mention the national attention he garnered when he spearheaded the investigation of the infamous Duke Lacrosse case. If the DSCC can coax Cooper into the fray, Burr will be in very serious trouble. And even if Cooper passes, conservative second-term Western North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler could jump in and give Burr a strong challenge. Both Cooper and Shuler are said to mulling candidacies. If either runs, we may see this seat switch to a new senator for an astonishing eighth time in 35 years. So, while North Carolina is much bluer today than it was four or ten years ago, I think Burr is in such great trouble because of the strength of two potential challengers. To my mind, as is likely apparent from this post and my past posts, I think the most important thing to examine in assessing an election is the simple relative strengths of the candidates. This race is a prime example of that belief system. Should Cooper and Shuler both pass, this race will likely drop down the line.

(7) Pennsylvania (Sen. Arlen Specter (R) will likely seek a sixth term in office). Arlen Specter is vulnerable. At nearly 78-years old, Specter is running in a Pennsylvania that has moved increasingly towards the Democratic Party in recent years as evidenced by Ed Rendell's victories in 2002 and 2006 and Bob Casey's absolute slaughter of Rick Santorum in '06. This is not the same PA that sent Arlen to the Senate in 1980, much less the same state as that of ten years ago. This, combined with Specter's age and repeated bouts with cancer makes his seat highly endangered. All of this being said, however, today I think Specter's chances are of re-election are looking better than they did a few months ago. Specter, who faced rough fights in 1980 and 1992, has won his last two general races comfortably and he is well liked by many Pennsylvanians. In 2004, Specter faced a strong primary challenge from the right from then-Rep. Pat Toomey, who called for Specter's ouster for being a RINO, or "Republican In Name Only." After a nasty contest, Specter barely survived 51-to-49, and since then Specter and others have been watching closely if he would face another primary fight. However, Toomey has already dismissed talk of a rematch, and it looks like Specter will have a clear shot to the general, a likely enormous relief to the grizzled veteran and a bummer for Democrats who had hoped he would be picked off or at least weakened before the general. However, the most important factor in assessing Specter's re-election is that the Democratic Party has so far been unable to attract the type of heavyweight candidate needed to knock off a five-term incumbent, even a less than fully robust one. Reps. Joe Sestak and Patrick Murphy have shown little interest in running, and Gov. Rendell will not challenge his friend Specter. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the Dem bench in the state is neither long nor deep. Therefore, while Specter may be vulnerable, yet again Pennsylvania Democrats are showing an inability to put up a strong nominee, bringing back memories of Ron Klink (Santorum's challenger in 2000) and Joe Hoeffel (Specter's challenger in 2006), crummy nominees who were pounded after Democrats could not come up with better options. Of course, there has been some talk that Specter might retire given his age and health problems, but my view on this is that unless he is very ill, Specter absolutely will run again. He will not retire unless he is compelled to: he loves his job way too much. If he were to retire, Democrats would be favored in holding the seat in all likelihood, but the blue team should not count on this happening.

(8) Illinois (appointed Sen. Roland Burris (D) will almost certainly run for a full term). This race might be the hardest one to analyze at this time given all the factors at play. There is no doubt in my mind that Roland Burris will run for a full term next year. But unless he gets only one credible primary challenger, I could certainly see him prevailing in a crowded primary by garnering a plurality big enough to supersede a group of pols who are less known. If another black politician were to primary challenger Burris, such as Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. or Rep. Danny Davis, then all bets are off, and Burris might be ousted. This is important because, as we have discussed, Burris would be vulnerable to a challenge from moderate GOP Rep. Mark Kirk, who is pondering a run of his own. While I stand by my belief that Democrats will hold this seat even if we see a Burris-Kirk general, such a match-up has to be giving DSCC head Sen. Bob Mendendez and IL Sen. Dick Durbin a few worrisome thoughts at night.

(9) Colorado (appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D) is running for a full term). While this seat will likely stay in Democratic hands, that speaks more to Republicans' deficiences in Colorado than to Bennet's strengths. As I posted when Bennet was surprisingly appointed, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper would have been the better pick, as he would have walked away with the election in 2010, but Bennet himself should still win unless he really screws up in the next year and a half, or Republicans are able to scrounge some fabulous nominee. As things stand now, numerous Republicans have declined to run -- a shocking illustration of how fast and far the state GOP has fallen in just a few short years -- and Bennet is thus looking good. If former GOP Gov. Bill Owens runs, Bennet could be in trouble, but that does not look like it will happen.

(10) Nevada (Sen. Harry Reid (D) is running for a fifth term). For someone who has been involved in his state's politics for nearly four decades, Harry Reid has never enjoyed immense popularity from his fellow Nevadans. I guess that this should not be a shock given Reid's colorless pesona and his reputation as a fairly ruthless pol. Republicans are delighted with Reid's low favorable splits, and are licking their chops at the prospect of ousting another Democratic leader just six years after Tom Daschle was beaten in 2004. Reid is not assured of another term in office, but he should still be favored. The fact is that you can't be something with nothing, and while he is not unbeatable, Republicans have yet to get a definitive 'yes' from a strong Republican challenger to take on Reid next year. Challengers are probably put-off by three things. First, Reid, all warts aside, will be able to raise tens of millions of dollars in his capacity as Majority Leader to beat back any challenge. No Republican will be able to reasonably match him. Second, with GOP Gov. Jim Gibbons extremely vulnerable, strong potential nominees are looking hard at primary challenging the governor to take what would be an easier contest. Third, Obama's enormous 12-point victory in the Silver State had to have been a wake-up call to many Republicans in the state as it demonstrated that the political landscape in Nevada may have been changing very fast in Democrats' favor. In sum, should a strong challenger emerge here, Reid will be in for a tough go of it, but as things stand tonight, that is not the case.

(11) Kansas (Sen. Sam Brownback (R) is retiring after two turns to run for governor). This one is very easy. If outgoing Democratic Gov. Kate Sebelius runs for Senate, she will be a slight favorite over whoever the GOP nominates, probably Rep. Todd Tiahrt or Rep. Jerry Moran. A poll out today from R2K shows the popular Sebelius up over 10 points over both men, which is exactly where she needs to be. Given her term and a half running the state, had she been up by anything less, it would have been a sign that she was not the great hope many Dems felt she was to be the Kansas Democratic Senator in over 75 years. As it stands, she is strong, but Kansas is so red that she would only be a slight favorite to win if she ran. If she decides not to run or she takes a job in Obama's cabinet, this seat is a lock to remain Republican.

(12) Iowa (Sen. Charles Grassley (R) is probably running for a sixth term). This is another easy one. If popular Sen. Chuck Grassley does run again, he wins in a walk. However, if he retires, this seat immediately shoots up into the top three on the line, with a Dem like Rep. Bruce Braley slightly favored to win.

(13) Louisiana (Sen. David Vitter (R) is running for a second term). As crazy as it may sound, I don't give Democrats much chance of being that tainted Vitter. Vitter is still relatively popular in the state, and Louisiana has been trending more to the right since Vitter won in 2004. Like with Reid, you can't beat something with nothing, and right now Democrats have nothing to throw at Vitter in the way of a top candidate.

(14) North Dakota (Sen. Byron Dorban is running for a fourth term). If popular GOP Gov. John Hoeven were to run, the race immediately becomes a total toss-up. The reason I have this race so low is because Hoeven declined to run against Sen. Kent Conrad in 2006, and he has given zero indication that he would run for Senate next year.

(15) Oklahoma (Sen. Tom Coburn (R) is running for a second term). Like in Kansas, Democrats have only one shot of beating Coburn short of a retirement or the infamous dead-girl, live-boy territory. If popular outgoing Gov. Brad Henry were to run against Coburn, the race would be a toss-up/lean slightly to Coburn. No one else has any shot of winning. For his part, Henry has shown little interest in running despite being term-limited in 2010. This is disheartening to Dems who would love to be rid of the firebrand conservative Coburn.

(16) New York (appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is running for a full term). Democrats will not lose this seat, whether or not Gillibrand is somehow ousted in the primary (which won't happen unless one ambitious rep were to grow a pair).

(17) The Rest. The rest of the races are not changing hands unless something completely unforeseen happens, either a retirement or fantastic scandal.

Are They Hiring?

Chartered flights on privates jets to exotic locales around the world, first-class cuisine at some of the finest restaurants in New York City, enormous bonuses funneled quietly into your bank account, all-expense paid apartmentsm and all you-can-eat spreads at the office. Is this a summary of an episode of Robin Leach's "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous"? No, rather it is a description of some of the perks that are lavished on campaign aides by New York City's billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

An article in today's New York Times details these and other delicious luxuries that Mayor Bloomberg routinely bestows on his political advisers and others who have the luck of working for him. The piece notes that with Bloomberg seeking a third term in office later this year, he appears eager and willing to spend over $80 million (on top of the over $100 million he spent to win in 2001 and get re-elected in 2005).

Is there a site where I send my resume, kind of like change.gov? I have visions of sushi at Nobu and summer weekends in East Hampton dancing in my head.

NJ-Gov: Did I Say That?

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post assessing Republicans' chances of toppling Gov. Jon Corzine in this year's gubernatorial race in New Jersey, scoffing at likely GOP candidate Chris Christie's odds of knocking off the deep-pocketed governor and former senator. Well, on the heels of a new poll showing Christie ahead of Corzine by a healthy six points (44-38) -- and Corzine sporting some pitiful personal splits -- I wanted to take a moment to amend my initial thoughts/predictions.

Do I still think Jon Corzine will be re-elected this November? Yes. Should I have foolishly dismissed Republicans' chances so early and out-of-hand? No. The fact is, as I have kept saying, Corzine has never been personally loved, or even well liked in the state. I glossed over this very important fact too quickly. The national financial crisis, combined with lingering high tax issues in the Garden State make 2009 a sticky year for any one to run for re-election, much less a former Goldman Sachs head who ran on a platform of bringing business savvy to Trenton. As a successful former U.S. Attorney for the state for successfully indicted bushels of high profile defendants over the last eight years, Christie can conduct more of an outsider's campaign, and as a result, his chances should not be dismissed, even if his candidacy has its own share of warts.

But there's another reason I have reassessed my initial views of this contest. One of my very key assumptions in predicting a Corzine victory was that like in his 2000 and 2005 contests, the governor would spend whatever it took to edge Christie; indeed, Corzine spent over $100 million to win those two campaigns, the first by a close margin and the second in a blow-out. However, as a couple of articles I have read pointed out in passing, given the brutal national economy, Corzine may no longer have the willingness or even the full ability to write a blank check for this race. This would be a huge break for Christie, as Corzine's greatest asset is his ability to blanket over his weaknesses with cash. If Corzine can't break the bank this time around, Christie won't need to raise as much in order to maintain a his own comfortable presence. Right now, to my mind, that might be Christie's biggest hurdle: namely, raising the tens of millions of dollars necessary not only to keep pace with Corzine, but also run a solid air war in perhaps the most expansive place in America to run statewide (New Jersey has no central media market, so for candidates to become known, they must buy ads in the New York and Philadelphia tv markets which hit the state).

So, what's my overall view right this minute? Given New Jersey's recent electoral history -- perhaps more aptly put as Republicans' string of losses in the state -- Christie and the GOP still face an uphill fight in ousting Corzine. Even if he cannot spend $70 million, Corzine won't be running a J.C. Penny campaign; for Corzine, it is always going to be a Cadillac effort. Consequently, despite the early dire polling, Corzine has an edge. I just no longer feel it as strong or deep an advantage. Chris Christie absolutely has a very good chance of winning.

What Keeps Me Up At Night

[Warning: What follows is a small piece on The New York Times which will drive media-haters and likely many conservatives crazy. If you fall in either broad category, be warned that this post may raise your blood pressure.]

At night, lying in snugly in your bed, people have different fears of what lurks in the dark. For children and adults, these fears obviously vary greatly. Whereas kids fear monsters, adults might fear job loss, financial problems, or nuclear terrorism. At some point when I was a kid, after I read "Cujo" by Stephen King, I had a deathly fear that there was a red-eyed monster in my closet that would come out after my parents had gone to sleep.

Well, these days while I no longer go into sweats after seeing scary movies (or at least that is what I tell chicks), I have a new fear when I am in the dark, and it involves something much dark and sinister than the bogeyman or a mob of monsters: I am terrified that The New York Times may be on its last legs. The prospect of the Times somehow out of existence is sometimes too much for me to bear.

Like the rest of newspapers out there, the Times is bleeding money every day, and it is unclear what, if anything will stanch the deluge. Part of this because newspapers are no longer as valued with news easily obtainable from various mediums including the Internet. As a result, newspapers are becoming less and less profittable, and thus unable to contend with the high costs associated with running a broadsheet. Additionally, the Times made a huge blunder several years ago when the controlling (and founding) Sulzberger family took the company public in an attempt to make a little more money. That was a grievous error which will continue to cost the organization and the paper in the longterm.

I know, I know. These are the classic, and perhaps pitiful rantings of an East Coast liberal who thinks the Times is the only place to get news. Are many Times readers elitist in some way? Yes. But do I think the Times is the only place to get news in this country? Of course not; I only think the Times is the best place to get news.

Yet, I am not one bit talking about the politics involved here. I think people who rail at the Times miss an important point. Sure, the Times' editorial page is slanted toward the left. Heavily. Its columnists are also nearly universally of the Big "D" persuasion. But why should that matter? That Times' is still, by a wide, wide margin, the best newspaper and news source in the entire world. Bar none. There is no source out there where the quality of the writing, the uniqueness of the stories, and the breadth of the coverage is as detailed and complete as that in the New York Times. It is not even close. The loss of the New York Times would be catastrophic for this country, and for the quality of other news outlets which try to emulate the Times not just in overall quality, but also in covered subject matter.

For those media-bashers who loathe the Times and can't stand the sight of the Gray Lady's famous editorial page, I have a simple retort: if you don't like the back two pages of Section A, just skip them. As I said, there is doubt that the editorial page is just about all left-wing But I do not think this detracts one iota from the overall fabulous quality of the rest of the paper. I know that I won't find something close anywhere else. Not in print, not on the web, and certainly not on CNN/Fox News/MSNBC. I live in Washington, and to those who have said to me that the Washington Post is as good or better than the Times are out of either insane or lying to themselves. The Post is a fine regional paper with some good stuff on the White House, Capitol Hill, and some select international affairs. Nonetheless, comparing the Post to the Times is like comparing a fine cod dinner to lobster tail, filet mignon, and jumbo shrimp. It is not even fair.

And you know what? Despite leaning more to the left than to the right in matters of politics, I never read the editorials. Never with a capital "N". I never read the vapid Maureen Dowd, I never read Paul Krugman, I never read Bob Herbert, and I never read Nicholas Kristoff. (I do, however, read Frank Rich, whose exquisite political take-downs usually elegantly express what I can only think and occasionally shout out loud in incoherent terms). This is not because they are bad writers or I do not agree with their general worldviews, but because I am simply not interested in what they have to say. I enjoy getting my news straight from a basic source, wherever I find it. To borrow from Fox News' famous credo, I like to get my reporting, and then decide what I think.

I wish haters of the Times would do the same. Just because the editors are slanted in their backpage stuff, does not mean that you should ignore the rest of the paper, which is not nearly as slanted in its writing. Those that feel this way should forget the editorials and the fiery columns, and instead judge the paper for its quality on every other page. Using that test makes it much more difficult to impugn the Times' considerable strengths.

Clearly, like the hundreds of other newspapers facing dire financial situations today, the Times has limited options besides continual cutbacks. One idea that has been bandied about a lot recently has been for the Times to begin charging subscription fees to access any of online content. Naturally, a lot of people have been critical of this idea, noting that the Times' popular website would lose a large majority of its regular traffic, with many people going elsewhere to get their news.

While I would not love the idea of the Times charging fees to read its sites, fees that could be potentially high, I would absolutely pay just about anything they required. For one thing, the Times' webpage has been the very best news website out there for years, ever since I started using the Internet back in college. Unlike many papers, the Times puts all of its material right online. Its page has always been pretty sleek and easy to access and navigate. Additionally, as I noted above, the page has totally free (except for a brief time when the editorial page was behind a pay-wall) to anyone who wants to read it and create an account name. In other words, readers have been enjoying the online content at no charge for over a decade. For this reason, I would have no issue with being asked to finally pay something for a paper I would have had to buy from a newstand. It would be equittable, not to mention fully worth it as the Times webpage has gotten really innovative in the last few months.

Forgive me if this post comes across as a gross New York Times lovenote over a week before Valentine's Day. It was only meant to be a little gushing. I just wanted to spell out how important the Times is not just to me, but to anyone who enjoys or appreciates terrific writing and news coverage. As the Times begins to sink deeper into financial trouble, I will continue to be terrified -- yes, terrified -- of the prospect that the Times could somehow cease to exist. I do not question that the newspaper industry as a whole is dying, though I certainly mourn it. However, to me, the New York Times is more than a run-of-the-mill newspaper. It is an American institution that is irreplaceable, and the world would be a worse-off place without it.

You Know You Have No Life When.....

You know you have no life when, despite being late for a date, you stay with your friends at a bar, refusing to leave until you fulfill a bet to name every county and statewide elected official in Colorado. I don't if that is worse than when I stayed up an entire night, checking the results of the Alaska Republican House primary in August, refreshing the Alaska Secretary of State webpage every 10 seconds in hopes that Don Young would ultimately survive. If it is not worse, it is close.

For the record, I fell two counties short. I just had to go, and my lateness was not appreciated.

Strickland's Clout

Three small news items over the last week have helped draw a clear picture of Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland's enormous clout in the state with his re-election looming next year along with an important open-seat Senate contest.

First came a piece which said that Strickland was strongly backing his Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher for the Senate seat, going so far as to lightly pressure Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner not to make the race. Then came polls showing Fisher owning a slight lead over Brunner in the prospective Democratic primary for the seat. Finally, today Quinnipiac has a poll out showing Strickland with a 60/19 favorable unfavorable split, and whooping 20+ and 30+ point leads over his two most dangerous prospective general election nominees, former Sen. Mike DeWine and former Rep. John Kasich.

The morale of all this? Ted Strickland is the unquestioned king of Ohio politics right now, and what he says and does will hold a great amount of weight not only in his own race, but in the Senate contest as well. It's my opinion and the opinion of other observers that Lee Fisher is not Democrats' best nominee for the Senate seat. Personally, I think Rep. Tim Ryan would be a great general election nominee -- his pro-life, pro-gun views gibing very well in Western Ohio in a general -- while I have to acknowledge I know very little about Brunner's politics or general disposition. Fisher, the former state Attorney General before joining Strickland's ticket in 2006 is alright, but he had statewide runs for office before, and is not that young (58 years old). Additionally, despite his long-standing presence in Ohio politics, he is not terribly well known across the Buckeye State.

Yet, all of this will likely be irrelevant if Strickland continues to swing his influence around both in the Senate primary and the 2010 general elections. It will be hard for Brunner (not to mention Ryan, and any other interested people who may not be out there) to defy the very popular governor and make a run if he actively backs Fisher. Furthermore, while Fisher may not be the best choice out there, with Strickland at the of the ticket above the Senate match-up next year, that may not matter if the governor is able to provide a big boast to rest of the 2010 Democratic ticket by winning decisively. In 2006, Strickland's massive victory certainly helped out then-Rep. Sherrod Brown who toppled then-Sen. DeWine by a larger margin than expected (though, of course, that 2006 was a strong year for Democrats across the country must be acknowledged).

If Fisher were to win, he would be Ohio's first Jewish Senator since Howard Metzenbaum, who held the other Senate seat before Mike DeWine won it and 1994.

For Jindal, Patience in Key

Since the November elections, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has become a bit of a celebrity on the political and Republican speaking circuits. Jindal, at 37 years old the nation's youngest governor, is viewed as a penultimate star in the GOP today and one of the party's future national leaders. For his part, Jindal has seemed to enjoy the attention, traveling around the country for various engagements, political and not, all the while coyly side-stepping questions about his possible presidential ambitions, questions he is no doubt delighted to address but not answer.

This is absolutely the wise course for Jindal because unlike many any other politicians with images of the White House dancing in their eyes, Jindal has plenty of time to be patient. After losing a close runoff for the Louisiana governorship in 2003, Jindal was elected to the House of Representatives for his first elective office in 2004. He left Congress upon being elected governor three years. As a result, Jindal is afforded not only relative youth, but also a thin record which will not burden him later. His presidential "freshness" will still be neatly intact for several years to come.

When Jindal is re-elected governor in 2011 -- and barring some unfortunate circumstances for him, that will happen given the current demise of the Louisiana Democratic Party -- he has options at his disposal. Assuming Barack Obama still looks very strong in a few years, he can sit tight in 2012 and not put himself out there as a nominee must likely to be sacrified to the Obama machine. Or, if he so desires, he could be a strong contender to be the running mate for someone like Mitt Romney, the king of whitebread candidates. Even if he were to be the number two on a losing ticket, he would be strongly positioned for an open seat in 2016.

Of course, Jindal can also stay completely out of the 2012 circus if a GOP slaughter looks likely, thereby walking above the fray and not being hit with the taint of a terrible loss afterwards. Naturally, he risks waiting too long and allowing his star to potentially set before then, because as we all know: in politics, a few years is a whole bunch of lifetimes. Nonetheless it is a risk worth taking from Jindal's perspective because of his youth and his lack of a long elected or legislative history. Unlike many ambitious pols who yearn for the presidency but have piled up too many years in office to remain palatable (basically the entire U.S. Senate on both sides), Jindal is still a relative newcomer to the scene, and as a result, he has a great deal of flexibility for his own career plans. This what makes him a likely frontrunner when he decides to make his move. I predict it will be in 2016.

Onward to the General

One of our favorite pollsters, Public Policy Polling is out with a new poll this week of the Virginia gubernatorial Democratic primary between former state Del. Brian Moran, state Sen. Creigh Deeds, and Democratic fundraiser and former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe, and the poll gives some strong news to McAuliffe with the campaign just getting under way. The poll shows the former DNC chair tied with Moran at 18%, and Deeds further back at 11%.

The reason this is good news is that whereas Moran has been a longtime political fixture in northern Virginia and has high name recognition (also in part because his brother James is a Congressman), McAuliffe got into this race as a complete unknown in Virginia except to the most diehard Democratic politicos. Indeed, part of McAuliffe's early showing here is due to the fact that he started airing commercials last month -- an unprecedented early opening for a primary that falls in June -- which have undoubtedly bolstered his name recognition.

While the race is still extremely early and this poll has an immensely high undecided number (not to mention, it gives McAuliffe higher negatives than both of the other two candidates), I expect McAuliffe to win the primary. I feel this way not because McAuliffe is a better candidate or politician than the other two, but rather for the simple reason that he is a spectacular fundraiser, and as the early commercials evidence, he will raise tens of millions of dollars in this campaign that Moran and Deeds will be unable to come close to matching. Central to Moran's and Deeds' campaign strategies will be to label McAuliffe a millionaire carpetbagger who is trying to buy the governorship, but unless they can raise a mint of money or hijack a couple of Brinks trucks, they are going to face tough sledding. You can bet your bottom dollar that neither of them will be on the air any time soon. Consequently, I see McAuliffe heading to the general election against state Attorney General Bob McDonnell.

Even this early, we can already turn our sights to the main event. In one corner, McAuliffe will raise a zillion dollars and run aggressively and gregariously (as is his personable nature), and in the other McDonnell will run on high name recognition and a strong law-and-order resume, but he is more polished than 2005 race loser and AG predecessor Jerry Kilgore. At this point, I would give the edge to McDonnell because he will be able to raise and spend a good amount of money, although certainly not in McAuliffe's neighborhood. Additionally, with the Virginia GOP having lost the last two gubernatorial races, as well as both U.S. Senate seats, three House seats, and the State Senate, the party is very hungry and determined to win back the governor's chair, especially with redistricting looming in 2011.

However, I think the biggest reason that McDonnell should be favored right now is because of McAuliffe's baggage as a plain fundraiser and a carpetbagger. Virginia is certainly not the state it was ten years ago when connections to the Clintons would be immense liabilities that a politician would run away from, but McAuliffe is still not running in New York. And McDonnell is certainly going to run on these themes. Then again, if McAuliffe ends up raising $80 million, it might not matter what McDonnell does.

We will all follow this one closely since a Democratic victory will signal the completion of Virginia's transformation to a blue state. And let me also state that my prediction here may not be worth a great deal since I foolishly guaranteed in 2005 that Kilgore would beat Tim Kaine who I preceived as too liberal to win statewide. Virginia may well just be blue enough now for a run-of-the-mill liberal Democrat to win. We'll see.

John Lynch

There is little question in my mind that New Hampshire Governor John Lynch is going to become a punching bag for many Democrats over the next few days after he appoints a Republican to fill out the final two years of Judd Gregg's current Senate term. Lynch, who apparently agreed to appoint a GOPer to the seat at the behest of Gregg, will be criticized by both state and national Democrats first for making a deal with Gregg, and second for slotting in a Republican despite his own party affiliation as well as the quick leftward movement of his state.

In my opinion, much of this criticism has been, and will continue to be wrongheaded, while some of the broader attacks on the guts of the Democratic Party is spot-on. In terms of the specific upcoming appointment, irate observers need to keep two things in mind. First, Lynch did not have much choice in this matter. If he did not give Gregg his assurances that the Senator would be replaced by a fellow elephant, Gregg likely would not have taken President Obama's appointment and would have stayed in his seat in order to prevent Democrats from getting to 60 seats in the upper chamber. Despite their party differences, having Gregg in the cabinet is a net plus for New Hampshire in terms of politics and plain pride, so it certainly is a good appointment from Lynch's perspective. Therefore, he made the deal, and I do not blame him for it.

Second, despite the momentary setback of having Gregg being replaced by a Republican, this is still a big net plus for the Dems in the longterm. As we have discussed ad naseum, Judd Gregg remains the most popular current Republican officeholder in New Hampshire. Had he run again next year, he would have certainly been more beatable than he ever has been, though he still would have been a slight favorite against Rep. Paul Hodes (who today announced he was running for the seat next year, not a big surprise). In other words, the seat was within the Democrats' grasp, but hardly a sure thing. By getting Gregg out of elected politics, Democrats now have a much easier shot at the plum office. I would go so far as to say that Hodes is now the favorite to be New Hampshire's next junior senator, given his own strengths and the state GOP's weak bench. So, Dems should not be too upset here: that kind of mindset is greedy and short-sighted as it relates to the seat itself.

Of course, all of this assumes that Lynch will appoint a placeholder to the seat who will not run for a full term next year. All indications are that that will happen, but if it does not, the entire calculus changes, not just for national Democrats, but for John Lynch himself. If Lynch were to tap someone who eventually ran as an incumbent, it would infuriate Democrats and end any national future he might have had before this saga. It would make much of this post moot.

One more point on all of this. Clearly, I have sympathy for John Lynch here. He is in an impossible position where no matter what course of action he takes, he will piss off one side. If he were to appoint a Democrat, Republicans would be apoplectic that the governor was taking a seat New Hamshirites had elected a Republican to, and given it to a Democrat. For a man who styles himself as strongly bipartisan -- as evidenced by his past behavior, and his enormous victory margins in his last two elections -- that kind of reaction would have been anathema. On the other hand, by appointing a Democrat, Lynch would undoubtedly bother his own party both in Corcord and Washington, DC.

All of that being said, I find it impossible to envision the Republicans honoring a similar agreement and arrangement if the roles were reversed. There is no way on earth any Republican governor (short of Vermont GOP Gov. Jim Douglas--maybe!) would appoint a Democrat to a seat where his party in Washington controlled 59 Senate seats. Of the two parties, only the Democrats would show this lack of gumption in such a political situation. As my old boss used to say, and admiringly, "Republicans' DNA is just different than Democrats'." And I make this observer too with admiration, not disdain!