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.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
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.
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!
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!
Friday, January 30, 2009
Obama the Political Genius?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
