tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81411940142515218362024-03-24T20:32:25.525-03:00A More Conservative UnionThe Partisan PlaygroundUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-10670823328824498202010-01-19T00:44:00.002-04:002010-01-19T00:44:35.221-04:00The Message of Massachusetts<h2 class="subhead">A crisis is a terrible thing to exploit.</h2>Whether or not Republican Scott Brown wins today in Massachusetts, the special Senate election has already shaken up American politics. The close race to replace Ted Kennedy, liberalism's patron saint, shows that voters are rebelling even in the bluest of states against the last year's unbridled pursuit of partisan liberal governance. <br />
Tomorrow marks the anniversary of President Obama's Inaugural, and it's worth recalling the extraordinary political opportunity he had a year ago. An anxious country was looking for leadership amid a recession, and Democrats had huge majorities and faced a dispirited, unpopular GOP. With monetary policy stimulus already flowing, Democrats were poised to get the political credit for the inevitable economic recovery. <br />
Twelve months later, Mr. Obama's approval rating has fallen further and faster than any recent President's, Congress is despised, the public mood has shifted sharply to the right on the role of government, and a Republican could pick up a Senate seat in a state with no GOP Members of Congress and that Mr. Obama carried by 26 points. <br />
What explains this precipitous political fall? Democrats and their media allies attribute it to GOP obstructionism, though Republicans lack the votes to stop anything by themselves. Or they blame their own Blue Dogs, who haven't stopped or even significantly modified any legislation of consequence.<br />
Or they blame an economic agenda that wasn't populist or liberal <em>enough</em> because it didn't nationalize banks and spend even more on "stimulus." It takes a special kind of delusion to believe, amid a popular revolt against too much government spending and debt, that another $1 trillion would have made all the difference. But that's the latest left-wing theme.<br />
The real message of Massachusetts is that Democrats have committed the classic political mistake of ideological overreach. Mr. Obama won the White House in part on his personal style and cool confidence amid a recession and an unpopular war. Yet liberals in Congress interpreted their victory as a mandate to repeal more or less the entire post-1980 policy era and to fulfill, at last, their dream of turning the U.S. into a cradle-to-grave entitlement state. <br />
We had been encouraged a year ago by Mr. Obama's selection of Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff because we thought he would have learned from the Clinton failure of 1993-1994 and knew enough to stand up to the Congressional left. How wrong we were. Mr. Emanuel and his boss have instead deferred to Congress's liberal barons on every major domestic policy. <br />
<div class="insetContent insetCol3wide embedType-image imageFormat-D"><div class="insetTree"> <div class="insettipUnit insetZoomTarget" id="articleThumbnail_1"><div class="insetZoomTargetBox"><div class="insettipBox"><div class="insettip"><a href="">View Full Image</a><br />
</div></div><a href=""><img alt="1obama" border="0" height="174" hspace="0" src="http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AK836_1obama_D_20100118174141.jpg" vspace="0" width="262" /></a></div><cite>All images: Associated Press</cite> <div class="targetCaption">Barney Frank; Ed Markey<br />
</div><div class="targetCaption"><br />
</div><div class="targetCaption">These committee chairmen are all creatures of the Great Society and what was called the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s. They have spent their lives in government and know almost nothing about the private sector or how to grow an economy. They view the Reagan era as an historical aberration, and they have stayed in Washington for decades precisely in wait of this moment to realize 40-years of pent-up policy ambition. They believe this is their 1965, or 1933.<br />
</div></div></div></div>While Mr. Obama campaigned as a young postpartisan Democrat who wanted a new era of comity in Washington, his victory has instead empowered these ancient left-wing warriors. These are the men who have run Washington this past year, and they are Mr. Obama's de facto cabinet. The nearby photos show some of the most powerful, clockwise from the top right:<br />
<div class="insetContent embedType-image imageFormat-D"><div class="insetTree"><div class="insettipUnit"><img alt="[1obama]" border="0" height="174" hspace="0" src="http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-FH587_1obama_D_20100118185957.jpg" vspace="0" width="262" /> <cite>Associated Press</cite> <div class="targetCaption">George Miller; David Obey<br />
</div></div></div></div>• Ed Markey of Massachusetts, first elected in 1976, helped to ram the cap-and-tax bill through the House and has pushed relentlessly for the EPA to declare carbon a pollutant under the Clean Air Act that didn't mention carbon.<br />
• Wisconsin's David Obey, elected in 1969, is the House Appropriations chairman who steered the $787 billion stimulus to focus on Medicaid expansion and other transfer payments that have done nothing for economic growth. <br />
• Henry Waxman, first elected in the Watergate class of 1974, deposed John Dingell in 2008 as too moderate to run the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Hollywood liberal is co-author of the cap-and-tax vote that will cost numerous Blue Dogs their seats.<br />
<div class="insetContent embedType-image imageFormat-D"><div class="insetTree"><div class="insettipUnit"><img alt="[1obama]" border="0" height="174" hspace="0" src="http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-FH588_1obama_D_20100118190433.jpg" vspace="0" width="262" /> <cite>Associated Press</cite> <div class="targetCaption">Pete Stark; Henry Waxman<br />
</div></div></div></div>• Pete Stark, class of 1972, runs the health subcommittee on Ways and Means and has written most of the House health reform that has forced moderates to walk the plank on the "public option."<br />
• George Miller, class of 1974 and chief enforcer for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has pushed to nationalize the college student loan market. Like Mr. Stark, he's from California.<br />
<a href="" name="U10414106703L6F"></a>• Barney Frank of Massachusetts, class of 1980 and chief protector of Fannie Mae, wrote the financial reform that would make too-big-to-fail the law for the largest banks. He has also pushed the mortgage foreclosure programs that have extended the housing recession by preventing home prices from finding a bottom.<br />
It is the combination of all of these and other policies that has ignited the political revolt we are now seeing in Massachusetts, and first saw last November in Virginia and New Jersey. Had Democrats modified their agenda to nurture a fragile economy and financial system, they could now claim their policies worked and build on them later. <br />
Instead, their frenetic agenda has frightened voters and businesses about the vast expansion of government power and enormous tax increases to come. The resulting uncertainty and the anticipation of higher costs for labor, taxes and energy have undermined what ought to be a more robust pace of job creation and overall recovery. <br />
The lesson of Mr. Obama's lost first year is that an economic crisis is a terrible thing to exploit. As they have each time in the last 40 years that they have had total control of Washington, Democrats are proving again that America can't be successfully governed from the left. If that is the lesson Mr. Obama learns from Massachusetts, he might still salvage his Presidency. <br />
<h2 class="subhead"> </h2>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-68905942012619490012010-01-15T00:37:00.002-04:002010-01-15T00:37:43.424-04:00Martha Coakley's Convictions<h2 class="subhead">The role played by the U.S. Senate candidate in a notorious sex case raises questions about her judgment.</h2><h3 class="byline">By <a href="http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=DOROTHY+RABINOWITZ&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND">DOROTHY RABINOWITZ</a> </h3>The story of the Amiraults of Massachusetts, and of the prosecution that had turned the lives of this thriving American family to dust, was well known to the world by the year 2001. It was well known, especially, to District Attorney Martha Coakley, who had by then arrived to take a final, conspicuous, role in a case so notorious as to assure that the Amiraults' name would be known around the globe. <br />
The Amiraults were a busy, confident trio, grateful in the way of people who have found success after a life of hardship. Violet had reared her son Gerald and daughter Cheryl with help from welfare, and then set out to educate herself. The result was the triumph of her life—the Fells Acres school—whose every detail Violet scrutinized relentlessly. Not for nothing was the pre-school deemed by far the best in the area, with a long waiting list for admission.<br />
All of it would end in 1984, with accusations of sexual assault and an ever-growing list of parents signing their children on to the case. Newspaper and television reports blared a sensational story about a female school principal, in her 60s, who had daily terrorized and sexually assaulted the pupils in her care, using sharp objects as her weapon. So too had Violet's daughter Cheryl, a 28-year old teacher at the school.<br />
<a href="" name="U10406032873ISE"></a>But from the beginning, prosecutors cast Gerald as chief predator—his gender qualifying him, in their view, as the best choice for the role. It was that role, the man in the family, that would determine his sentence, his treatment, and, to the end, his prosecution-inspired image as a pervert too dangerous to go free. <br />
<a href="" name="U10406032873CMC"></a>The accusations against the Amiraults might well rank as the most astounding ever to be credited in an American courtroom, but for the fact that roughly the same charges were brought by eager prosecutors chasing a similar headline—making cases all across the country in the 1980s. Those which the Amiraults' prosecutors brought had nevertheless, unforgettable features: so much testimony, so madly preposterous, and so solemnly put forth by the state. The testimony had been extracted from children, cajoled and led by tireless interrogators.<br />
<div class="insetContent insetCol3wide embedType-image imageFormat-D"><div class="insetTree"> <div class="insettipUnit insetZoomTarget" id="articleThumbnail_1"><div class="insetZoomTargetBox"><div class="insettipBox"><div class="insettip"><a href="">View Full Image</a><br />
</div></div><a href=""><img alt="rabinowitz" border="0" height="174" hspace="0" src="http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AK826_rabino_D_20100114190953.jpg" vspace="0" width="262" /></a></div><cite>Associated Press</cite> <div class="targetCaption">Martha Coakley, attorney general of Massachusetts, at a campaign stop, Jan. 13.<br />
</div><div class="targetCaption"><br />
</div><div class="targetCaption">Gerald, it was alleged, had plunged a wide-blade butcher knife into the rectum of a 4-year-old boy, which he then had trouble removing. When a teacher in the school saw him in action with the knife, she asked him what he was doing, and then told him not to do it again, a child said. On this testimony, Gerald was convicted of a rape which had, miraculously, left no mark or other injury. Violet had tied a boy to a tree in front of the school one bright afternoon, in full view of everyone, and had assaulted him anally with a stick, and then with "a magic wand." She would be convicted of these charges. Cheryl had cut the leg off a squirrel. <br />
</div></div></div></div>Other than such testimony, the prosecutors had no shred of physical or other proof that could remotely pass as evidence of abuse. But they did have the power of their challenge to jurors: Convict the Amiraults to make sure the battle against child abuse went forward. Convict, so as not to reject the children who had bravely come forward with charges.<br />
Gerald was sent to prison for 30 to 40 years, his mother and sister sentenced to eight to 20 years. The prosecutors celebrated what they called, at the time "a model, multidisciplinary prosecution." Gerald's wife, Patricia, and their three children—the family unfailingly devoted to him—went on with their lives. They spoke to him nightly and cherished such hope as they could find, that he would be restored to them.<br />
Hope arrived in 1995, when Judge Robert Barton ordered a new trial for the women. Violet, now 72, and Cheryl had been imprisoned eight years. This toughest of judges, appalled as he came to know the facts of the case, ordered the women released at once. Judge Barton—known as Black Bart for the long sentences he gave criminals—did not thereafter trouble to conceal his contempt for the prosecutors. They would, he warned, do all in their power to hold on to Gerald, a prediction to prove altogether accurate.<br />
No less outraged, Superior Court Judge Isaac Borenstein presided over a widely publicized hearings into the case resulting in findings that all the children's testimony was tainted. He said that "Every trick in the book had been used to get the children to say what the investigators wanted." The Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly—which had never in its 27 year history taken an editorial position on a case—published a scathing one directed at the prosecutors "who seemed unwilling to admit they might have sent innocent people to jail for crimes that had never occurred."<br />
It was clear, when Martha Coakley took over as the new Middlesex County district attorney in 1999, that public opinion was running sharply against the prosecutors in the case. Violet Amirault was now gone. Ill and penniless after her release, she had been hounded to the end by prosecutors who succeeded in getting the Supreme Judicial Court to void the women's reversals of conviction. She lay waiting all the last days of her life, suitcase packed, for the expected court order to send her back to prison. Violet would die of cancer before any order came in September 1997.<br />
<a href="" name="KA1F"></a>That left Cheryl alone, facing rearrest. In the face of the increasing furor surrounding the case, Ms. Coakley agreed to revise and revoke her sentence to time served—but certain things had to be clear, she told the press. Cheryl's case, and that of Gerald, she explained, had nothing to do with one another—a startling proposition given the horrific abuse charges, identical in nature, of which all three of the Amiraults had been convicted. <br />
No matter: When women were involved in such cases, the district attorney explained, it was usually because of the presence of "a primary male offender." According to Ms. Coakley's scenario, it was Gerald who had dragged his mother and sister along. Every statement she made now about Gerald reflected the same view, and the determination that he never go free. No one better exemplified the mindset and will of the prosecutors who originally had brought this case.<br />
Before agreeing to revise Cheryl's sentence to time served, Ms. Coakley asked the Amiraults' attorney, James Sultan, to pledge—in exchange—that he would stop representing Gerald and undertake no further legal action on his behalf. She had evidently concluded that with Sultan gone—Sultan, whose mastery of the case was complete—any further effort by Gerald to win freedom would be doomed. Mr. Sultan, of course, refused.<br />
In 2000, the Massachusetts Governor's Board of Pardons and Paroles met to consider a commutation of Gerald's sentence. After nine months of investigation, the board, reputed to be the toughest in the country, voted 5-0, with one abstention, to commute his sentence. Still more newsworthy was an added statement, signed by a majority of the board, which pointed to the lack of evidence against the Amiraults, and the "extraordinary if not bizarre allegations" on which they had been convicted. <br />
Editorials in every major and minor paper in the state applauded the Board's findings. District Attorney Coakley was not idle either, and quickly set about organizing the parents and children in the case, bringing them to meetings with Acting Gov. Jane Swift, to persuade her to reject the board's ruling. Ms. Coakley also worked the press, setting up a special interview so that the now adult accusers could tell reporters, once more, of the tortures they had suffered at the hands of the Amiraults, and of their panic at the prospect of Gerald going free.<br />
On Feb. 20, 2002, six months after the Board of Pardons issued its findings, the governor denied Gerald's commutation.<br />
<a href="" name="U10406032873VXG"></a>Gerald Amirault spent nearly two years more in prison before being granted parole in 2004. He would be released, with conditions not quite approximating that of a free man. He was declared a level three sex offender—among the consequences of his refusal, like that of his mother and sister, to "take responsibility" by confessing his crimes. He is required to wear, at all times, an electronic tracking device; to report, in a notebook, each time he leaves the house and returns; to obey a curfew confining him to his home between 11:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. He may not travel at all through certain areas (presumably those where his alleged victims live). He can, under these circumstances, find no regular employment.<br />
The Amirault family is nonetheless grateful that they are together again. <br />
Attorney General Martha Coakley—who had proven so dedicated a representative of the system that had brought the Amirault family to ruin, and who had fought so relentlessly to preserve their case—has recently expressed her view of this episode. Questioned about the Amiraults in the course of her current race for the U.S. Senate, she told reporters of her firm belief that the evidence against the Amiraults was "formidable" and that she was entirely convinced "those children were abused at day care center by the three defendants." <br />
What does this say about her candidacy? (Ms. Coakley declined to be interviewed.) If the current attorney general of Massachusetts actually believes, as no serious citizen does, the preposterous charges that caused the Amiraults to be thrown into prison—the butcher knife rape with no blood, the public tree-tying episode, the mutilated squirrel and the rest—that is powerful testimony to the mind and capacities of this aspirant to a Senate seat. It is little short of wonderful to hear now of Ms. Coakley's concern for the rights of terror suspects at Guantanamo—her urgent call for the protection of the right to the presumption of innocence. <br />
If the sound of ghostly laughter is heard in Massachusetts these days as this campaign rolls on, with Martha Coakley self-portrayed as the guardian of justice and civil liberties, there is good reason.<br />
<em>Ms. Rabinowitz, a member of the Journal's editorial board, is the author of "No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusations, False Witness And Other Terrors Our Times" (Free Press, 2003).</em> <br />
<h2 class="subhead"> </h2>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-67346745948669482502010-01-13T01:03:00.000-04:002010-01-13T01:03:04.344-04:00Lessons of '66 and '94 Loom Over Democrats: Part 1<span class="postheader">by <strong><a href="http://biggovernment.com/author/tdelbeccaro"> Thomas Del Beccaro </a> </strong> </span> <!-- Article Start --> <br />
Midterm elections can present a considerable risk for a new President. Often viewed as a referendum on a President’s policies, the last 45 years featured such huge party losses as 54 House seats under Clinton, 48 seats under Ford, and 47 seats under Johnson. While Ford’s fate was not entirely his own, the fates of Johnson and Clinton present foreboding scenarios for Democrats in 2010.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="lyndon" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-58662" height="277" src="http://biggovernment.com/files/2010/01/lyndon.jpg" title="lyndon" width="255" /><br />
</div>Johnson and Clinton: Unpopular Policies Lead to Midterm Losses.<br />
In 1964, the Democrats were sitting atop the political world. They held 68 Senate seats and gained 36 House seats for an overwhelming margin of 295 to 140 – not to mention winning the White House. Just two years later, however, they lost 48 seats. Why? A series of policies that were unpopular including a “credibility gap” on the Vietnam War and what one Democrat Governor said was “Frustration over Vietnam; too much federal spending and… taxation; no great public support for your Great Society programs; and … public disenchantment with the civil rights programs.” Despite the economy growing 6% because of the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts, the divide between Johnson’s policies and public opinion produced a 49% approval rating for Johnson and resulted in historic losses for the President and his party in 1966.<br />
<span id="more-58658"></span><br />
In 1994, the Democrats lost a stunning 54 seats and control of the House for the first time in over 40 years. Bill Clinton was elected because Bush 41 broke his “no new tax” pledge, the economy was weak, the deficit was high and Ross Perot siphoned votes – all of which gave the young Clinton, promising middle class tax cuts, a plurality victory. Clinton then overestimated his victory, got off to a rocky start and raised taxes instead of cutting them. The divide between Clinton and voters over policy played out in his first midterm election when Republicans picked up 54 seats amidst an approval rating of 46% for Clinton – despite a recovering economy.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="bill-clinton1" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-58666" height="252" src="http://biggovernment.com/files/2010/01/bill-clinton1.jpg" title="bill-clinton1" width="333" /><br />
</div>Obama’s Growing Divide.<br />
Barack Obama won the Presidency in large part because of a weak economy. Although he gave the voters only a vague sense of what <em>Change</em> would really mean, the damage Republicans did to themselves between 2005 and 2008, along with the economy, was enough for Obama to win – along with Media help and the dynamic of an historic first chance to elect a black President. It is important to note that Obama won only 52.9% of the vote – a victory but not an overwhelming victory.<br />
Today, Obama’s approval rating is in the mid to high 40s – an historic drop for a first year President. Democrats rightly point out that the economy Obama inherited hurts his ratings. It is his policies, however, that are increasingly more at odds with Americans and are truly the cause for his plummeting ratings.<br />
Keep in mind that Obama approval rating in April was in the 60% range despite the bad economy. Yes the continuing bad economy has a corrosive effect on Obama’s popularity; his divisive policies, however, have had a worse effect.<br />
The so-called “stimulus” spending and resultant higher deficits are unpopular and hardly working. The Health Care bill is strongly opposed; the cap and trade/global warming policies are unpopular as are the coming tax hikes. Those divisive policies have played a central role in quickly driving down Obama’s ratings.<br />
2010 – No Room for a Turnaround.<br />
Given lagging job growth and high deficits, and policies that many know will hurt, not help, the economy, the economic situation will not be the Democrats friend in 2010. The unpopular Health Care bill will dominate the 1<sup>st</sup> quarter of 2010 as the reconciliation process takes center stage – along with cap and trade, a record federal deficit, along with tax hikes, and an immigration battle that may scare and anger many voters.<br />
Obama’s mounting policy divide with Americans, combined with a weak economy should leave Obama’s approval ratings in the low 40s by the summer and through the fall.<br />
All of that is bad news for Democrats House candidates next fall. Over the last 40 years, the average loss, in House seats, for the Presidents party when his approval rating is below 50% was 41 seats. Recalling that even in a <em>recovering</em> economy that Clinton lost 54 seats and Johnson 47, unless Obama can bridge the growing policy divide he has with Americans or the economy roars back, unlikely scenarios both, Obama may well suffer the same fate as Johnson and Clinton with losses that exceed 40 seats – enough for the Republicans to retake the House.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-45871571615951950962010-01-10T01:57:00.000-04:002010-01-10T01:57:07.353-04:00Upset In The Making? Brown Leads Coakley In MA Sen Poll<span class="entry_info">Posted by Mike Memoli | <a href="http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/09/upset-in-the-making-brown-leads-coakley-in-ma-sen-poll/#" onclick="return ET2(document.title, 'http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/09/upset-in-the-making-brown-leads-coakley-in-ma-sen-poll/ ');" onmouseout="return ETMouseOut();" onmouseover="return ETMouseOver();">Email This</a> | <a href="http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/09/upset-in-the-making-brown-leads-coakley-in-ma-sen-poll/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to Upset In The Making? Brown Leads Coakley In MA Sen Poll">Permalink</a> | <a href="mailto:mmemoli@realclearpolitics.com">Email Author</a></span> <br />
<div class="snap_preview">Democrats have been playing a careful game as the Massachusetts Senate contest winds down, raising the stakes in an effort to keep supporters engaged, but unwilling to admit any real concern. But <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MA_45398436.pdf">this survey</a> out late Saturday from Public Policy Polling (D) (744 LVs, 1/7-9, MoE +/- 3.6%) is sure to have Democrats across the country in a more obvious panic. <br />
<strong>Special Election Matchup</strong><br />
Brown (R) 48<br />
Coakley (D) 47<br />
Und 6<br />
Brown, who has had the airwaves largely to himself since the December primary election, has strong net +32 rating, while Coakley is just +7. And that is helping him with indies. From <a href="http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/toss-up-in-massachusetts.html">PPP</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Brown leads 63-31 with independents and is winning 17% of the Democratic vote while Coakley receives only 6% support from GOP voters. Both candidates are relatively popular, with 57% viewing Brown favorably to only 25% unfavorable and 50% with a positive opinion of Coakley to 42% negative.<br />
</blockquote>Brown has run on the idea that he would be the "41st vote" in the Senate to oppose health care, and it seems those who are more likely to vote on January 19 would favor that decision: 47 percent oppose the Democratic plan, while 41 percent support it. President Obama's approval rating among these likely voters is a slim 44 percent, to 43 percent who disapprove.<br />
It seems unlikely a final health care vote will happen in the Senate until after this special election, which certainly raises the stakes for Democrats here. The Coakley camp has announced that President Clinton will campaign with the attorney general this Friday. Perhaps now you'll see some sort of direct appeal from the White House. And Democrats will certainly have to try and raise Brown's negatives and tie him to the national GOP if they are to right the ship.<br />
Though he's been clear he'd side with his party on the key issues like health care, Brown called himself as an independent in an interview with RCP this week who wouldn't be beholden to anyone if he was elected. You can read more from that interview <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/06/interview_with_scott_brown_99794.html">here</a>.<br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-89536985082152804802010-01-09T00:51:00.002-04:002010-01-09T00:51:48.837-04:00McCain vs. Obama's 'Left-wing crusade'<div class="date-stamp"><br />
<!-- by Mark Silva--></div><div class="image"> <img alt="Obama and McCain on immigration.jpg" border="0" src="http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/01/07/Obama%20and%20McCain%20on%20immigration.jpg" /> </div><a href="http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/"><img alt="The Swamp" border="0" class="swampicon" height="54" src="http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/images/swampicon.gif" width="37" /></a> <div class="story-body"> <em>by Mark Silva</em><br />
John McCain has run against Barack Obama before.<br />
He's running against him again.<br />
With campaign radio ads billing the five-term Republican senator as "Arizona's last line of defense,'' the GOP's nominee for president in 2008 is attempting to bolster his 2010 campaign for reelection to the Senate with a slam at the president.<br />
"President Obama is leading an extreme left-wing crusade to bankrupt America,'' <a href="https://secure.campaignsolutions.com/fojm/radioads/default.aspx?&initiativekey=IAQPERNJMS04"><strong>McCain says in one of the radio ads </strong></a>his campaign is airing. <br />
<span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><a href="http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/01/07/McCain%20after%20meeting%20with%20Obama.html" onclick="window.open('http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/01/07/McCain%20after%20meeting%20with%20Obama.html','popup','width=1024,height=681,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img alt="McCain after meeting with Obama.jpg" class="mt-image-right" height="239" src="http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/01/07/McCain%20after%20meeting%20with%20Obama-thumb-360x239.jpg" style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 20px 20px;" width="360" /></a></span><br />
"I stand in his way every day,'' McCain says. "If I get a bruise or two knocking some sense into heads in Washington, so be it.''<br />
<br />
McCain got his own head-knocking in the 2008 presidential election, and now he could be facing a party primary contest from a former Republican congressman, <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0110/McCain_up_with_ads_trashing_Obama.html"><strong>J.D. Hayworth, who is an outspoken critic of immigration reform </strong></a>-- an issue which McCain has championed in the Senate, and an issue on which McCain, Obama and some of the Senate's leading Democrats happen to agree. They support a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants.<br />
But on the radio, McCain and Obama could not be further apart.<br />
"He's lived through a battle or two, vanquished many a foe,'' a narrator says of the retired Navy pilot and admiral's son who spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. "But perhaps no battle in our lifetime is more vital than the one John McCain fights now... a battle to save America, save our jobs... <br />
"John McCain leads the charge to slash government spending, bloated bureaucracies and ridiculously unaffordable ideas like government run health care.''<br />
In another ad playing on a battle-tested McCain campaign tactic of invoking his days as a POW - reminding voters in Arizona that he could have come home to the U.S. earlier from that prison camp than he did (though Arizona was not home at the time) - the narrator says:<br />
"John McCain is leading the fight against President Obama every day.''<br />
It could get interesting when they get to that immigration bill.<br />
(<em>Sen. John McCain is pictured above after a meeting between President Barack Obama and the Democratic Caucus to push the health care reform plan at the Capitol in December, in a photo by Nicholas Kamm / AFP / Getty Images. And McCain is pictured above with President Barack Obama, meeting with members of Congress to discuss immigration in June at the White House in a photo by Haraz N. Ghanbari / AP)</em><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-76392149765262773772010-01-08T00:14:00.002-04:002010-01-08T00:14:50.573-04:00Young Guns II<h2 class="subhead">Some of the GOP's heavy hitters are giving thought to the party's future.</h2><br />
Through the tall trees of northern Wisconsin, Republican Sean Duffy is stalking a giant. The 38-year-old district attorney is talking fiscal responsibility, job creation, entitlement reform. He's scoring Washington for higher taxes, and for a health-care takeover. He's Facebooking and Twittering. He comes across as a serious yet positive reformer, a combo that has caught the public's eye. <br />
<a href="" name="U10386163871QUE"></a>He'll need that eye, and more, since his Goliath is one David Obey, Democratic head of the Appropriations Committee, the liberal bull who has occupied Wisconsin's Democratic-leaning 7th congressional seat since before Mr. Duffy was . . . born. That the Republican is getting some traction says something about how bitter voters are with the Democratic agenda. It says something equally important about a nascent GOP effort to rebrand the party. <br />
Meet the new Young Guns. <br />
The recent wave of Democratic retirements bodes well for Republicans. Yet they are still largely winning by default. The public doesn't like the Democratic agenda, but it hasn't forgotten the GOP's own corruption and loss of principle. And crafting a new image is a tough haul for a minority that is stuck responding to events, and that is still populated by many of the same, entrenched faces.<br />
What is happening instead is a real (if underreported) effort to reshape the party from the bottom up—to, in effect, repopulate it with a crop of reformist candidates in the midterm. Behind the effort are three congressmen—Wisconsin's Paul Ryan, Virginia's Eric Cantor and California's Kevin McCarthy.<br />
<div class="insetContent insetCol3wide embedType-image imageFormat-D"><div class="insetTree"> <div class="insettipUnit insetZoomTarget" id="articleThumbnail_1"><div class="insetZoomTargetBox"><div class="insettipBox"><div class="insettip"><a href="">View Full Image</a><br />
</div></div><a href=""><img alt="pw0108" border="0" height="174" hspace="0" src="http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AK787_pw0108_D_20100107193205.jpg" vspace="0" width="262" /></a></div><cite>Melissa Maund Rasmussen</cite> <div class="targetCaption">Republican Sean Duffy on the campaign trail.<br />
</div><div class="targetCaption"><br />
</div><div class="targetCaption">In 2007, Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard profiled this trio as the "Young Guns" of the GOP. Hailing from different parts of the country, from different perspectives, what the three shared was a core belief in fiscal conservatism, a wonkish interest in tackling systemic government failures (budget, entitlements), and an ability to connect to younger voters. <a href="" name="U10386163871O3D"></a><br />
</div></div></div></div>At a recent interview, Rep. McCarthy remembers that not long after the article, the three sat down and vented frustration that party leaders seemed more interested in protecting old faces than investing in new talent. Inspired by Mr. Barnes's label, they began the Young Guns program, to recruit and bring along a new generation of House Republicans. <br />
In the 2008 election, the program singled out 24 conservative candidates, providing them money and help. Seven went on to win in the GOP wipeout. Several of the victors—Texas's Pete Olson, Florida's Tom Rooney—are already proving to be aggressive new voices. Pete Sessions, who took over the National Republican Congressional Committee, was impressed enough to bring the program within the committee structure and expand it. <br />
<a href="" name="U103861638711YD"></a>Participation in Young Guns today is more challenging. Candidates must hit benchmarks to qualify for the title, money and support; 47 candidates are working to qualify. And what exactly is a prospective Young Gun? It isn't as mapped out as Newt Gingrich's Contract With America. Yet it also isn't Rahm Emanuel's famous Red-to-Blue program, which simply ran candidates—regardless of ideology—who could win. <br />
Mr. McCarthy says Young Guns tend to "fit their district." What they have in common is "that they are all fiscal conservatives" who believe in entrepreneurship and limited government. Many were already unhappy with Republican earmarking and spending, and the bailouts and deficits have provided a new focus on cleaning up government and tackling crony capitalism. <br />
Most are running bread-and-butter economic campaigns, similar to Virginia Gov. Elect Bob McDonnell's. They are folks like Stephen Fincher, a farmer running for retiring Democratic Rep. John Tanner's Tennessee seat, or Frank Guinta, mayor of Manchester, challenging New Hampshire's Carol Shea-Porter. Mr. McCarthy is quick to note these are not backroom-anointed candidates, a la Dede Scozzafava in New York. In some districts, more than one prospective Young Gun is running in a primary. <br />
Wisconsin's Mr. Duffy describes it this way: "I'm running because this is the fight of my generation. The prior one fought the Cold War, before that it was World War II. But our fight is becoming one for the principles of free markets and against creeping socialism." He's targeting Mr. Obey for writing the $787 billion stimulus, highlighting Democrats' failed economic program. The DA (who is also a professional lumberjack athlete) is crisscrossing the district to warn about rampant spending, Medicare cuts, higher taxes and overregulation. <br />
But he's also aware that Republicans can only shake a tarnished reputation by embracing a modern, reform agenda. He's been laying out conservative alternatives to government-run health care. He's honest about the coming entitlement bomb. He's proposing a flatter, smarter tax code. In his first fund-raising quarter, he raised $140,000—a record for the district. <br />
<a href="" name="U10386163871JZD"></a>Young Guns is no panacea. Party leaders are still searching for a clear message. The NRCC is struggling to raise money to support its recruits. Voters remain skeptical of the GOP, and the environment may improve for Democrats as the year goes on. <br />
Yet what the program does suggest is some of the GOP's heavy hitters are giving thought to the party's future. Given the Republicans' recent years of wandering, that's a start. <br />
<a href="" name="U10386163871QFH"></a> <em>Write to <a class="" href="mailto:kim@wsj.com">kim@wsj.com</a> </em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-60555972679619557612010-01-07T00:45:00.002-04:002010-01-07T00:45:56.928-04:00Exit Stage Left<h2 class="subhead">Chris Dodd retires ahead of the voter posse. </h2><tt><b><img src="http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20100106/i/r2427128558.jpg?x=249&y=345&q=85&sig=13Wzyx19ODnoS5ZuOC8mJQ--" width="200" /></b></tt><br />
<br />
Something odd is happening to the permanent progressive majority that the U.S. was supposed to have elected 14 months ago: Its Members are announcing plans to leave Congress even before the voters get a chance to pass judgment on their liberal governance. <br />
<a href="" name="U103818184012RD"></a>"This is my moment to step aside," Christopher Dodd said yesterday in front of the East Haddam, Connecticut home that he once financed with the help of Countrywide Financial. The 65-year-old, five-term Senator said his decision not to seek re-election was his own, but there's little doubt he was heading toward a well-earned defeat this fall amid personal scandal and an angry electorate unsettled by the Obama-Pelosi agenda.<br />
<a href="" name="U10381818401PGF"></a>A day earlier, North Dakota's 67-year-old Byron Dorgan announced he also won't seek re-election. Though a left-winger in a conservative state, Mr. Dorgan's brand of prairie populism has sold well enough to keep him in Washington for 30 years, and the Senate for three terms. Mr. Dorgan has not had a truly close election since Barack Obama was in grade school, but this year he might have faced popular GOP Governor John Hoeven in a state where 64% of those polled in December by Rasmussen Reports opposed ObamaCare. Mr. Hoeven, if he runs, or some other Republican will likely win the seat, assuming the GOP is remotely competent.<br />
The Dodd retirement means that his seat is also up for grabs. We wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Dodd, so far down in the polls, was told by fellow Democrats that he needed to clear the field for someone with a chance to win in the bluish state. Democrats think that man is the seemingly eternal state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, but the national environment favors Republicans. <br />
<a href="" name="U10381818401FZ"></a>As the state's highest-ranking law-enforcement official, Mr. Blumenthal rejected any suggestion of investigating the state's senior Senator for his participation in Countrywide's VIP program. This may make voters rightly skeptical of his potential to be an agent of change. Mr. Blumenthal certainly offers nothing new on policy for those voters grown weary of Mr. Dodd's agenda.<br />
<a href="" name="U103818184016FG"></a>The potential for GOP gains in these states, and others, underscores how much the Democrats' 60-seat Senate majority is a fleeting historical accident. Alaska Republican Ted Stevens barely lost even after he was convicted of a crime that was overturned after the election. Trailing after election night in 2008, Minnesota Democrat Al Franken surged to victory during a "recount" distinguished by more ballots than voters in 25 precincts and preposterous inconsistency in the enforcement of rules by the state's Canvassing Board. Pennsylvanian Arlen Specter switched parties last year after his vote for the Obama stimulus became so unpopular that he concluded he could never win again as a Republican. <br />
The looming collapse of the Democrats' momentarily filibuster-proof majority is reason enough not to ram through a health-care bill on a partisan vote. The brute political force will only look more willful and dismissive of public opinion. <br />
The other immediate policy implication is that Republicans now have a much stronger hand to reject Mr. Dodd's blueprint for financial reform. Combining a safety net for too-big-to-fail behemoths with expensive consumer regulation that would fall on small community banks, his proposal has a limited constituency outside Goldman Sachs.<br />
Republicans should resist the collegial urge to bestow a taxpayer-funded capstone on Mr. Dodd's Congressional career. They are likely to be in a much stronger position in 2011.<br />
<h2 class="subhead"> </h2>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-85719030626481022802010-01-06T00:37:00.002-04:002010-01-06T00:37:31.775-04:00Dorgan says he will not seek re-election in 2010<div class="byline"> <div class="photo"> <img alt="Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. speaks to a reporter, after voting ..." id="photoMain" src="http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20091212/capt.c7d3c2fe978a493eaec7e060bd93907e.congress_spending_dchh124.jpg?x=400&y=289&q=85&sig=b9fkB0qMQVQbaDvq2Xh11g--" /> </div><div class="cite"> <div id="photoProvider"> <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/brand/photos//SIG=10qgqrhua;_ylt=AveA8vxHe5RBWXK77dw6zqVsaMYA/*http://www.apimages.com/"><img alt="AP" src="http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/nws/p/ap_small.gif" /></a> </div><!-- end photoProvider --> <cite id="photoTimestamp">Sat Dec 12, 1:10 PM ET</cite> </div><cite class="vcard"> </cite></div><div class="byline"><cite class="vcard"> </cite></div><div class="byline"><cite class="vcard">By KEN THOMAS, Associated Press Writer <span class="fn org">Ken Thomas, Associated Press Writer</span> </cite> – <abbr class="timedate" title="2010-01-05T15:32:36-0800">Tue Jan 5, 6:32 pm ET</abbr></div><!-- end .byline --> WASHINGTON – <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1262737063_0" style="-moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; -moz-background-origin: padding; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; cursor: pointer;">North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan</span> says he will not seek re-election to the Senate in 2010, a surprise announcement that could give Republicans an opportunity to pick up a seat from the Republican-leaning state.<br />
Dorgan, who was first elected to the Senate in 1992 after serving a dozen years in the U.S. House, said he reached the decision after discussing his future with family over the holidays.<br />
The moderate Democrat said he has other interests he wants to pursue.<br />
<span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1262737063_1" style="-moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; -moz-background-origin: padding; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; border-bottom: 1px dashed rgb(0, 102, 204); cursor: pointer;">Republican Gov. John Hoeven</span> has been mulling a possible challenge to Dorgan and the veteran lawmaker's retirement could clear the path for the popular governor. <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1262737063_2" style="-moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; -moz-background-origin: padding; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; border-bottom: 1px dashed rgb(0, 102, 204); cursor: pointer;">Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy</span> could be interested in seeking the seat.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-71581990762972386202010-01-06T00:32:00.003-04:002010-01-06T00:33:28.525-04:002006 Flashback: Pelosi Says Dems Will Have Most Honest & Ethical Congress in History<object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/f5KC7zwdMfE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/f5KC7zwdMfE&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-53002543852222542232010-01-06T00:28:00.000-04:002010-01-06T00:28:09.611-04:00Watch Out for GOP Populism<h2 class="subhead">Rep. Paul Ryan an enemy of business?</h2>It's easy to underestimate conservatism's chances in these dark days. Over the last year, the Republican Party has appeared to be either a gang of obstructionists or a confused relic of some prehistoric past; its thinkers seemed to do little more than repeat catch-phrases you've heard dozens of times before; even its most earnest activists sometimes appeared to be the pawns of lobbying organizations. <br />
<a href="" name="U10378976752EXF"></a>But the movement might stage a comeback yet. According to the demented logic of American politics, the world began anew with the Obama presidency, and so it is the Democrats who will have to go before the public this fall and defend the bailout of Wall Street. Similarly, it might be the Republicans who seize the opportunity to capture public outrage this time around, denouncing concentrated economic power, insisting on holding big business accountable, and promising to settle scores with the nation's erstwhile financial rulers.<br />
Given the GOP's doings over the past 30 years, such a reversal may strike you as implausible, if not downright ridiculous. But it can be done. The first step in what could become a movement in that direction is the essay by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) that appeared in Forbes magazine in December. Its title: "Down With Big Business." <br />
Now, Mr. Ryan seems at first like no more of a radical than do the editors of Forbes. The "philosophy of governing" spelled out on his campaign Web site rails against the New Deal, "class envy economics," and a federal "regulatory leviathan." <br />
Mr. Ryan's fund raising also follows an unremarkable conservative pattern. According to the Web site maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, many of his donations come from people or Political Action Committees associated with insurance, banking and a certain private equity firm that invests in banks and insurance companies.<br />
<div class="insetContent insetCol3wide embedType-image imageFormat-D"><div class="insetTree"> <div class="insettipUnit insetZoomTarget" id="articleThumbnail_1"><div class="insetZoomTargetBox"><div class="insettipBox"><div class="insettip"><a href="">View Full Image</a><br />
</div></div><a href=""><img alt="frank0106" border="0" height="174" hspace="0" src="http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-FF085_frank0_D_20100105202956.jpg" vspace="0" width="262" /></a></div><cite>Associated Press</cite> <div class="targetCaption">Rep. Paul Ryan<br />
</div><div class="targetCaption"><br />
</div><div class="targetCaption">But the tone Mr. Ryan takes in his Forbes article makes him sound like the Jacobin of Janesville. <br />
</div></div></div></div>He savages "crony capitalism," pausing to note the "resentment" it is inspiring. He depicts the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP, as a well-intentioned measure that has become "an ad hoc, opaque slush fund for large institutions that are able to influence the Treasury Department's investment decisions behind-the-scenes." He complains about lobbying, offers the obligatory denunciation of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, and bemoans the economic disasters befalling small companies while the rescued banks enjoy "record profits."<br />
Had he stopped there, Mr. Ryan might have become my favorite Republican since William Allen White. <br />
But the problem seems not to be that government made poor decisions over the past year; it's that government made any decisions at all. Government, in Mr. Ryan's view, is alternately the tool and the terror of big business, doing one firm's bidding as it crushes another one. The solution is to get government out of the game altogether, and Mr. Ryan fondly recalls the great deregulatory campaigns of the past (leaving out the embarrassing story of how he and his colleagues overturned Glass-Steagall and then watched the banking industry explode in a fireball of freedom).<br />
This was once a familiar line of criticism: Big business's sin was that it wasn't entrepreneurial enough. If given the opportunity, business would use government to form cartels and suppress competition. Free markets must thus be protected from the grasp of the corporate monster. The way to bring big business down is by deregulating even more.<br />
If this sounds twisted and counter-intuitive, that's because it is. This is an argument that might have sounded good in 1979 but for it to make sense today one has to disregard the wreckage all around us courtesy of three decades of regulatory rollback. <br />
Still, for a large part of the Republican base all this will no doubt ring true: the problem with big business is big government. <br />
For millions of disaffected independent voters, meanwhile, the tail-chasing logic behind the "down with big business" rhetoric probably won't make any difference. All that will matter will be the sincerity of the emotion, and if Mr. Ryan's essay is any indication, this is a job Republicans can do as well as any Code Pink activist.<br />
That's why we may be heading for the greatest burst of fake populism since those TV commercials 10 years ago that showed a mob breaking down the doors of a stock exchange—not because the revolution was on but because they wanted to trade like the pros, which the sponsor promised to let them do.<br />
Democrats, for their part, will find it difficult to respond in kind, especially after having spent their first year delivering regal gifts to the insurance industry and dithering over the urgent matter of new financial regulation. Their friends in the labor movement, meanwhile, got a lump of coal. <br />
Oh well, many Democrats probably figure. Those people have nowhere else to go.<br />
We shall see.<br />
<a href="" name="U103789767521QE"></a>Write to <a class="" href="mailto:thomas@wsj.com.">thomas@wsj.com.</a> <br />
<h2 class="subhead"> </h2>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-50199423495312463202010-01-04T01:17:00.002-04:002010-01-04T01:17:39.726-04:00Obama's last year<h2 class="readout">A Republican win would rob him of power — and make him a better president</h2><div class="story_body"><strong>Welcome to 2010: The final year of the Obama administration.</strong> <br />
Not literally. For all I know, by 2012 the economy will be hotter than a terrorist’s underpants, Afghanistan will be no more unruly than Indianapolis Colts fans after their coach decided to throw away a perfect season and <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/Barack_Obama">President Obama</a> will resoundingly win re-election after <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/Diane_Sawyer">Diane Sawyer</a> gets Republican nominee <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/Sarah_Palin">Sarah Palin</a> to confess she thought going rogue meant adding some pink makeup to her cheeks.<br />
But a Democrat strategist told Bryon York of the Washington Examiner that House empress Nancy Pelosi was comfortable with losing “20 to 40” seats in the lower chamber as the price for getting health care “reform” passed. A loss of 40 seats would mean flipping the House to <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/U.S._Republican_Party">GOP</a> hands, and instead of crossing swords with bogeymen like radio talk show hosts or unemployed former governors, the president would for the first time have to deal with a Republican who wields real power. The prospect of Obama trying to wheedle and cajole John Boehner the way <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/Ronald_Reagan">Ronald Reagan</a> wooed Tip O’Neill should brighten every conservative’s outlook.<br />
<div class="intext_area" id="intext_area_middle"> <!-- CORRELATION PHOTO --> <div class="intext_object intext_photo"> <img alt="A Republican Congress improved Clinton's presidency - the same could happen to Obama." height="300" src="http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2010/01/03/news/photos_stories/cropped/obama--300x300.jpg" title="A Republican Congress improved Clinton's presidency - the same could happen to Obama." width="300" /> <div class="photo_credit">REUTERS</div><div class="caption">A Republican Congress improved Clinton's presidency - the same could happen to Obama.</div></div><!--
ad(quigo_intext,/news,news_story)
<ad> <id>sports_story_lower</id> <page_type>sports_page</page_type> <quigo_pos>quigo_lower</quigo_pos> <placementid>1482096</placementid> <pid>871776</pid> <width>440</width> <height>225</height> <slug>*</slug> </ad> --> </div>If even Pelosi is writing off up to 40 seats, it should be a bright year for Republican House candidates. Assuming incoming Speaker of the House Boehner or another Republican leader is able to keep his troops united — and lately the <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/U.S._Republican_Party">Republicans</a> have displayed the harmony of an Olympics-caliber synchronized swimming team — that means an end to the glory days for Team Obama.<br />
The liberal path to our national salvation is about to get itself a nice concrete roadblock.<br />
Tick, tick.<br />
So how much can the Obamatrons get accomplished in the next 12 months? Twelve months, it turns out, isn’t even enough to accomplish something Obama thought he could do with a stroke of a pen — close Guantanamo Bay. Administration officials are now saying that won’t happen until at least 2011.<br />
Tick, tick.<br />
With 60 seats in the <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/U.S._Senate">Senate</a> and a huge majority in the House, <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/U.S._Democratic_Party">Democrats</a> still needed the entire year to pass their health care bill — and that project isn’t even finished. Lately reports out of the Hill have been saying that the final push to reconcile the House and Senate bills won’t take place until February. If the rejiggered bill loses even three votes in the House, it fails. Pro-life Rep. <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/Bart_Stupak">Bart Stupak</a> (D-Mi.) has said he can’t support a bill that is as friendly toward federal abortion funding as the Senate version, and he says he there are 10 other Dems who voted for the House version who feel the same way.<br />
Tick, tick.<br />
Finalizing passage of the health care bill is practically the easiest item on the Obama agenda. If they complete the health care marathon, dazed and gasping and dodging tomatoes thrown by their own constituents, how much regulatory mojo are lefty lawmakers going to have remaining to dive into cap-and-trade?<br />
Politico reports “at least a half-dozen Democrats” in the Senate have told the <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/White_House">White House</a> to drop cap-and-trade. Recessions are notoriously harsh on the sales of luxury goods, and the nation is in no mood to spend hundreds of billions of lost economic output in order to buy a magical amulet to ward off <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/Global_Warming">global warming</a>. Suggested compromise: Mr. President, why not deal with global warming with a nice interfaith prayer summit? You can invite every imam and Buddhist monk you know — don’t forget the pagans! — to hold hands and ask for a solution from whatever all-inclusive, nonpatriarchal supreme force might be inclined to listen. It’ll have the same effect on global warming as walloping everybody who uses carbon-based energy with a huge tax.<br />
Remember how ambitious the Clinton administration was in its first two years? All that changed when Sheriff Gingrich arrived at the party and took away the keg. Suddenly it was Gingrich who was dictating the agenda — his capital gains tax cuts and welfare reform were the major policy accomplishments of the last six years of Clinton’s presidency.<br />
Ultimately, though, Obama should be grateful if the Republicans do retake the House this year. Poll after poll shows that people like him personally more than they like his policies. If Republicans take away his ability to ram through any more of his ill-advised ideas, the appeal of Obama’s personality might regain precedence in citizens’ minds. He can blame the Republicans for saying no to everything, since that is indeed the party’s primary job, and the American voter can return to the pose he finds most comfortable: Simultaneously castigating the Washington forces that oppose change and enjoying the bounty that comes from stability.<br />
By defeating Obama-ism in 2010, Republicans might find themselves repaid with an Obama victory in 2012.<br />
</div><div class="story_link_box"> <strong><em>Have a comment on this PostOpinion column? Send it in to</em> <a href="mailto:letters@nypost.com">LETTERS@NYPOST.COM!</a></strong><br />
</div><div id="TixyyLink" style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-70555901037591128482009-12-30T01:06:00.000-04:002009-12-30T01:06:55.497-04:00Why Regular Americans Are Turning Away From DemocratsBy Carol Platt Liebau<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9NHzJfKY9j0/Szrf6pCVX8I/AAAAAAAAAW0/8UnjcTK1blc/s1600-h/untitled.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9NHzJfKY9j0/Szrf6pCVX8I/AAAAAAAAAW0/8UnjcTK1blc/s320/untitled.bmp" /></a><br />
</div><br />
<br />
Certainly, 2009 is not ending on the note that Obama supporters - or the President himself - expected. Iran develops a nuclear arsenal unchecked, spitting in the eyes of the United States and the rest of the world. As evidenced on Christmas Day, Al Qaeda adherents still plot to murder innocent Americans. Notwithstanding his campaign pledge to slow the rise of the oceans, President Obama will find it difficult to execute at home the climate-change promises he made abroad.<br />
<br />
And that's just foreign policy. At home, the "stimulus" rushed through Congress with the promise of a quick economic recovery and more jobs has shown no results - except trillions in new deficits, high unemployment and a continuing story of payoffs to key Democrat constituencies. Health care "reform" - intended as the apotheosis of liberal, big-government do-gooderism - has degenerated into a political disaster for the Democrats, with significant majorities of Republicans and independents opposing new congressional legislation so misbegotten that even its supporters characterize it as "flawed."<br />
<br />
Receive news alerts<br />
Sign Up<br />
Carol Platt Liebau RealClearPolitics<br />
Health care environment<br />
economy<br />
[+] More<br />
<br />
Yet even as Obama's partisans have been surprised, perhaps his political adversaries have been astonished, as well. Given the uncritical coverage of the new President by the media during last year's campaign - and the warm embrace extended to him by the overwhelming majority of Americans last January - the magnitude of the burgeoning, spirited (but non-violent) repudiation of his brand of big-government liberalism has been heartening, and amazing.<br />
<br />
Too often over the years, all the political passion (and public demonstrations of it) has seemed to come from groups on the left seeking an ever-larger role for government in American life. Students, unions, actors, community organizers and such have made most of the noise, not coincidentally because they've been the ones with the time and the inclination to do it. Those on the other side - small business people, the self-employed, stay-at-home moms and the like - have traditionally worked to succeed within the status quo, rather than constantly trying to change it. Often they've been so busy, in fact, that they've failed to notice when little bits of their liberty have been incrementally chipped away.<br />
<br />
It took the shock of a year of unchecked Democrat rule to change all of that. Suddenly, regular Americans - the ones usually too busy or too complacent to protest - have come to realize that, like Frankenstein's monster, big government has taken on a life of its own. The federal government (led by a man who never held a private-sector business job) has taken over Chrysler and General Motors. Government appointees decree how much (and how) certain businesses can pay their own employees. And through environmental taxation and regulations, bureaucrats are seeking to seize control of virtually the entire private sector.<br />
<br />
Suddenly, the liberty and free enterprise most of us have taken for granted seem to be in the greatest jeopardy of our lifetime. Worse yet, Democrat politicians have ignored the public outcry, ramming through unpopular legislation that would put one-sixth of the economy (and every American's health care!) under government control. Regular Americans - the ones more inclined to watch sports or go shopping than to organize protests - have taken notice. They've also taken umbrage.<br />
<br />
By overreaching and arrogantly ignoring the widespread public discontent with them and their policies, Democrats from the President on down have succeeded in awakening a sleeping giant - regular Americans. They are people who may often take their freedom for granted, but who don't intend ever to let it be taken away.<br />
<br />
They are the male and female heirs to the Sons of Liberty of Revolutionary times, the people who understand the danger of a government leviathan, and who insisted on "No taxation without representation." After watching the politicians they voted into power last year ignore the common good, instead seeking only power and political advantage for themselves, they're appalled - and perhaps even a little frightened.<br />
<br />
Certainly, 2009 was a dark and disheartening year for lovers of economic and individual liberty. But if next year shapes up in accordance with current trends, the tide is about to change. With a growing recognition of the preciousness (and fragility) of liberty and a renewed appreciation of our founding principles, America is poised for a rebirth of freedom. Hail 2010: The Year of the Citizen.<br />
<br />
Carol Platt Liebau is an attorney, political commentator and guest radio talk show host based near Los Angeles.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-33951810087717757602009-12-23T01:06:00.002-04:002009-12-23T01:06:24.111-04:00A Democrat DefectsNews from the Obama re-alignment watch: Alabama Congressman Parker Griffith announced yesterday that he plans to switch parties and become a Republican. At a press conference, the oncologist-turned-politician said he could not continue to align himself with a Democratic Party pushing a health-care bill that is "bad for our doctors . . . bad for our patients, and . . . bad for the young men and women who are considering going into the health-care field."<br />
<div class="insetCol3wide"><div class="insetContent"> <h3 class="first">OpinionJournal Related Stories: </h3>Review & Outlook: <a class="" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704304504574610194107807878.html">ObamaCare's Longshoremen Rules</a> <br />
Review & Outlook: <a class="" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html">Change Nobody Believes In</a> <br />
John Fund: <a class="" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703478704574612143366041068.html">Porking Up and Loving It</a> <br />
William McGurn <a class="" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704304504574610512331342976.html">O Come O Come, Emanuel</a> <br />
</div></div>Other than that, how do you like the bill?<br />
Party switching often happens after a big election, as lawmakers try to retain legislative clout or join a new majority (Arlen Specter). A small boatload of moderate Democrats flipped to the Republican party after the Gingrich Revolution in 1994, including such Democrats as Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and Southern Congressmen Billy Tauzin, Nathan Deal and Mike Parker. <br />
<a href="" name="U10356387853EIE"></a>Far rarer is a mid-Congress conversion such as Mr. Griffith's, which comes a year before an election and from a party that has a 41-seat majority. It's true that Mr. Griffith is from Alabama, and only 38% of his district voted for President Obama. Mr. Griffith also voted against the stimulus and cap and trade, and this summer he said he wouldn't vote again for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker because she is "divisive and polarizing."<br />
On the other hand, Republicans haven't held the seat since Reconstruction. And if last year's Democratic sweep truly signaled a sharp national swing to the left and a new majority that is likely to be lasting, then Mr. Griffith would have every incentive to stay a Democrat.<br />
Our own view is that Mr. Griffith is the first Blue Dog casualty of this year's hard-left Democratic policy turn, but he decided to switch rather than fight next year. Many other Blue Dogs who voted for the stimulus, cap and tax, and health care are likely to experience a different kind of exit from the majority.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-1830583970851750132009-12-22T01:22:00.000-04:002009-12-22T01:22:00.203-04:00Dreading our futureI am a baby boomer, which is to say my life has coincided with turbulent and awesome times. From the Cold War to Vietnam, from Watergate to Monicagate, through the horrors of 9/11 and the stunning lifestyle advances, my generation's era has been historic and exciting. <br />
Yet for all the drama and change, the years only occasionally instilled in me the sensation I feel almost constantly now. I am afraid for my country. <br />
I am afraid -- actually, certain -- we are losing the heart and soul that made America unique in human history. Yes, we have enemies, but the greatest danger comes from within. <br />
<div class="intext_area" id="intext_area_middle"> <!-- CORRELATION PHOTO --> <div class="intext_object intext_photo"> <img alt="" height="200" src="http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009/12/20/news/photos_stories/cropped/007_piglets--300x200.jpg" title="" width="300" /> <div class="photo_credit">Getty Images</div><div class="caption"> </div></div><!--
ad(quigo_intext,/news,news_story)
<ad> <id>sports_story_lower</id> <page_type>sports_page</page_type> <quigo_pos>quigo_lower</quigo_pos> <placementid>1482096</placementid> <pid>871776</pid> <width>440</width> <height>225</height> <slug>*</slug> </ad> --> <div class="block ad wrap quigo_intext" style="z-index: 1;"> <div class="ad quigo_intext"> <script type="text/javascript">
adsonar_placementId=1482040;adsonar_pid=871774;adsonar_ps=-1;adsonar_zw=300;adsonar_zh=225;adsonar_jv='ads.adsonar.com';
</script><script language="JavaScript" src="http://js.adsonar.com/js/adsonar.js">
</script><iframe frameborder="0" height="225" hspace="0" id="adsonar_serve657984" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="adsonar_serve657984" scrolling="no" src="http://ads.adsonar.com/adserving/getAds.jsp?previousPlacementIds=&placementId=1482040&pid=871774&ps=-1&zw=300&zh=225&url=http%3A//www.nypost.com/p/news/national/dreading_our_future_EmFMYk61Kja4iC3EMYePVP&v=5&dct=Dreading%20our%20future%20-%20NYPOST.com&ref=http%3A//www.realclearpolitics.com/%3Fstate%3Dnoad" vspace="0" width="300"></iframe> </div></div></div>Watching the freak show in Copenhagen last week, I was alternately furious and filled with dread. The world has gone absolutely bonkers and lunatics are in charge. <br />
Mugabe and Chavez are treated with respect and the <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/United_Nations">United Nations</a> is serious about wanting to regulate our industry and transfer our wealth to kleptocrats and genocidal maniacs. <br />
Even more frightening, our own leaders joined the circus. Marching to the beat of international drummers, they uncoupled themselves from the will of the people they were elected to serve. <br />
<a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/Barack_Obama">President Obama</a>, for whom I voted because I believed he was the best choice available, is a profound disappointment. I now regard his campaign as a sly bait-and-switch operation, promising one thing and delivering another. Shame on me. <br />
Equally surprising, he has become an insufferable bore. The grace notes and charm have vanished, with peevishness and petty spite his default emotions. His rhetorical gifts now serve his loathsome habit of fear-mongering. <br />
"Time is running out," he says, over and again. He said it on health care, on the stimulus, in Copenhagen, on Iran. <br />
Instead of provoking thought and inspiring ideas, the man hailed for his <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/Ivy_League">Ivy League</a> nuance insists we stop thinking and do what he says. Now. <br />
His assertion we will go bankrupt unless <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/U.S._Congress">Congress</a> immediately adopts the health monstrosity marks a new low. At least it did until he barged into a meeting in Copenhagen to insult the Chinese with the same do-it-now arrogance on carbon emissions. <br />
Don't get me wrong -- it's OK to insult the Chinese, but save it for an urgent life-and-death issue. Iran qualifies, with its plans for a nuclear arsenal, yet Obama has not pushed China on that issue with the fervor of his attacks on their dirty smokestacks. <br />
Washington has its own freak show and it also features Big Government theocrats. One of the mainstream media myths is that the Democrat-on-Democrat attacks of late pit moderates against liberals. <br />
<div id="TixyyLink" style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"> Horse hockey. No person of conservative or moderate sensibility could possibly support a federal takeover of the massive health system. <br />
That some who profess to be moderates have gone along, either out of fear or partisan loyalty or payoffs, only underscores the madness. <br />
In fact, it is a myth the fight is over health care at all. It is a vulgar power dispute between liberals and extreme liberals, with health care a convenient portal for command-and-control of 17 percent of the economy. <br />
It's definitely not reform. <br />
Notice how little Obama talks about sick people or medicine or suffering or any of the realities of illness and death. There is almost no mention of the moral dimension that supposedly animates the demand for universal coverage. <br />
<div class="intext_area" id="intext_area_middle"> <!-- CORRELATION PHOTO --> <div class="intext_object intext_photo"> <img alt="" height="200" src="http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009/12/20/news/photos_stories/cropped/007_piglets--300x200.jpg" title="" width="300" /> <div class="photo_credit">Getty Images</div><div class="caption"> </div></div><!--
ad(quigo_intext,/news,news_story)
<ad> <id>sports_story_lower</id> <page_type>sports_page</page_type> <quigo_pos>quigo_lower</quigo_pos> <placementid>1482096</placementid> <pid>871776</pid> <width>440</width> <height>225</height> <slug>*</slug> </ad> --> <div class="block ad wrap quigo_intext"> <div class="ad quigo_intext"> <script type="text/javascript">
adsonar_placementId=1482040;adsonar_pid=871774;adsonar_ps=-1;adsonar_zw=300;adsonar_zh=225;adsonar_jv='ads.adsonar.com';
</script><script language="JavaScript" src="http://js.adsonar.com/js/adsonar.js">
</script><iframe frameborder="0" height="225" hspace="0" id="adsonar_serve494822" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="adsonar_serve494822" scrolling="no" src="http://ads.adsonar.com/adserving/getAds.jsp?previousPlacementIds=&placementId=1482040&pid=871774&ps=-1&zw=300&zh=225&url=http%3A//www.nypost.com/p/news/national/dreading_our_future_EmFMYk61Kja4iC3EMYePVP/1&v=5&dct=Dreading%20our%20future%20-%20NYPOST.com&ref=http%3A//www.nypost.com/p/news/national/dreading_our_future_EmFMYk61Kja4iC3EMYePVP" vspace="0" width="300"></iframe> </div></div></div>The public intuitively understands the con, which is why it prefers the flawed status quo. Voters tell pollsters by as much as 3-to-1 they think a federal takeover will cost them and the country more money and will produce more red tape instead of better care. <br />
Yet, because power corrupts, and one-party rule corrupts absolutely, dissenters are considered heretics. Until the next election. <br />
Meanwhile, Mother Nature delivered her verdict with yesterday's blizzard in Washington. I am cheered by the thought that finally, hell has frozen over. <br />
<strong>Unions feed as city bleeds</strong> <br />
The disastrous decision by the City Council to kill a jobs-generating, $300 million development project in The Bronx was a scary sign of the rise of union power. But it's not the only one. <br />
Virtually every day brings fresh evidence of how unions and their captive politicians are taking New York down a destructive path. <br />
Consider the slash-and-burn <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/MTA">MTA</a> service cuts, which include a plan to end free rides for hundreds of thousands of students. It's no accident the decision, aimed at saving $400 million, comes as the agency is forced by the courts to pay raises of $300 million over two years. <br />
At nearly 4 percent a year for each worker, the raises, first granted by a suspect arbitration process, mean the MTA's first obligation is to a union-protection racket instead of to paying customers. To cut services while giving raises in a recession is insane. <br />
Something similar is happening with schools. Gov. Paterson's attempt to keep the state from running out of cash by delaying a fairly minor state-aid payment of $146 million was met with a lawsuit. The teachers union and some school boards claim he has no right to make the decision without legislative approval. <br />
That would be the same Legislature that, when the union says jump, asks "how high." <br />
Paterson showed courage by also calling the lawsuit the selfish act it is. <br />
"We're supposed to get all the money and everybody else can just divide up the crumbs," he said of the attitude behind the suit. "It's clear to me they don't care about anybody but themselves." <br />
The long-term impact of excessive union pandering is reflected by a Citizens Budget Commission study. Working with the Partnership for New York, it surveyed 52 large firms and found the city could save about $1.4 billion annually simply by providing the same health-insurance benefits as private firms. <br />
Pension savings would be astronomical if the city could follow the private-market system of defined contributions instead of defined benefits. <br />
Instead, it's locked into exorbitant and outdated plans. Taxpayers this year alone are paying $10.4 billion for the health insurance of employees and retirees and pensions for current workers. <br />
In short, the problem is bad and getting worse. Each and every day. <br />
<strong>Judge not - & be judged</strong> <br />
There is no fury like that of an arrogant judge. Or 18 of them. That's how many signed an extraordinary letter calling the city's top lawyer, Michael Cardozo, "imperious" and "insulting."<br />
Cardozo dared to criticize the slow pace of the courts, saying too many judges put off decisions or can't manage their caseloads.<br />
The oddity is that Cardozo and his boss, <a class="topiclink" href="http://www.nypost.com/t/Michael_Bloomberg">Mayor Bloomberg</a>, have too rarely faulted individual judges for bonehead rulings. Their silence earned them only an expectation it would be permanent.<br />
With nothing to lose, maybe now they will speak up more often.<br />
<strong>Larking up wrong tree</strong> <br />
<em>A story about city Christmas tree sellers told of their enduring long days and cold nights -- and the daffy questions of cus tomers. Among the dumbest: "How much are the $25 trees?"</em> <br />
<div id="TixyyLink" style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/dreading_our_future_EmFMYk61Kja4iC3EMYePVP#ixzz0aOMcFJOt"></a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-69927848724526940092009-12-18T01:02:00.002-04:002009-12-18T01:02:31.696-04:00Victory by Democrats on health care could turn sour<div class="cnn_stryathrtmp"><div class="cnnByline">By <b>Gloria Borger</b>, CNN Senior Political Analyst<script type="text/javascript">
cnnAuthor = "By Gloria Borger, CNN Senior Political Analyst";
</script></div><div class="cnn_strytmstmp"><script type="text/javascript">
if(location.hostname.indexOf( 'edition.' ) > -1) {document.write('December 17, 2009 -- Updated 1132 GMT (1932 HKT)');} else {document.write('December 17, 2009 6:32 a.m. EST');}
</script>December 17, 2009 6:32 a.m. EST</div></div><!--endclickprintinclude--><!-- google_ad_section_end --><!--startclickprintexclude--> <!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- google_ad_section_start --><!-- CONTENT --><!-- REAP --><!-- KEEP --><!--startclickprintinclude--> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript">
var clickExpire = "-1";
</script> <!-- REAP --><!--startclickprintexclude--> <div class="cnn_strylftcntnt"><div class="cnn_strylctcntr cnn_strylccimg214"><div> <!--===========IMAGE============--><img alt="tzleft.gloria.borger.cnn.jpg" border="0" height="122" src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/OPINION/12/17/borger.democrats.retiring/tzleft.gloria.borger.cnn.jpg" width="214" /><!--===========/IMAGE===========--> </div></div></div><!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- /REAP --><div class="cnn_strylftcntnt"><div class="cnn_strylctcntr"><div><b>STORY HIGHLIGHTS</b></div><ul class="cnn_bulletbin cnnStryHghLght"><!-- google_ad_section_start -->
<li>Democrats concerned about retirements in their ranks in Congress</li>
<li>Gloria Borger says recent state election in Kentucky highlights risks to Democrats</li>
<li>GOP candidate "nationalized" election by tying Democrat to Pelosi, Borger says</li>
<li>Democratic victory on unpopular health bill could hurt the party in midterm elections, she says</li>
<!-- google_ad_section_end --></ul></div></div><div class="cnn_strylftcntnt"><div class="cnn_strylctcntr cnn_strylctcqrelt"><script type="text/javascript">
var cnnRelatedTopicKeys = [];
</script><div> <b>RELATED TOPICS</b> </div><ul class="cnn_bulletbin"><li> <script type="text/javascript">
cnnRelatedTopicKeys.push('U_S_Democratic_Party_Politics');
</script><a href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/U_S_Democratic_Party_Politics">Democratic Party</a></li>
<li> <script type="text/javascript">
cnnRelatedTopicKeys.push('Health_Care_Policy');
</script><a href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Health_Care_Policy">Health Care Policy</a></li>
<li> <script type="text/javascript">
cnnRelatedTopicKeys.push('U_S_Republican_Party_Politics');
</script><a href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/U_S_Republican_Party_Politics">Republican Party</a></li>
</ul></div></div><div class="cnnEditorialNote"><em><b>Editor's note:</b> Gloria Borger is a senior political analyst for CNN, appearing regularly on CNN's "The Situation Room," "Campbell Brown," "AC360°" and "State of the Union With John King," as well as during special event coverage. </em><br />
</div><b>Washington (CNN)</b> -- Democrats in Congress, already worried about their dim prospects in the 2010 midterm elections, have been thrown in a tizzy about something else that could reduce their majority: retirements.<br />
They are four departures down and worried about more members leaving districts that have grown more competitive. And they're right to be concerned: Districts without any incumbent running often wind up switching to the other party.<br />
But there's much more to worry about. Consider the results of a recent "open seat" special election for the state senate in a Democratic district in rural eastern Kentucky: Republican Jimmy Higdon beat the Democrat Jodie Haydon by tying him to, of all things, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.<br />
"Congress is out of control," one effective ad intoned, "and [Haydon] will bring Nancy Pelosi's one-party control of government to Frankfurt."<br />
Republican Higdon won by 12 points.<br />
Sure, the <a class="cnnInlineTopic" href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/U_S_Democratic_Party_Politics">Democrats</a> say, there are local reasons their guy lost: The district itself is trending Republican. There were only about 20,000 voters. Obama himself only carried 38 percent of the vote there.<br />
And while both candidates oppose abortion rights, the Republican Higdon was endorsed by the local right-to-life groups -- a big plus in this socially conservative region -- which he trumpeted in TV spots. So, they claim, all politics is local, right?<br />
But wait. How do you explain the good GOP turnout? Or the fact that the Democrats won a prior special election in Kentucky earlier this year -- when no national issues were interjected -- but lost this time when the themes centered on Washington? "The country likes and wants balanced government," says Brad Todd, a GOP political consultant who worked on the Kentucky race. "And they feel the country is out of balance right now."<br />
In other words, it's easy to nationalize even a state senate race when the locals don't like the way things are going in the country.<br />
And it's not only the economy, although that is a big part of it -- with unemployment at more than 11 percent in Kentucky. The health care debate, which was supposed to be a huge plus for Democrats, has instead become a huge political albatross. "It's a polarizing issue," says Todd. "The Democrats have been pushing on this issue for an extended period of time now -- in the face of public opinion against it. The length and content of the health care fight has hurt the Democratic brand."<br />
O, the irony: The Democrats -- who run the Congress and the White House -- have to pass <a class="cnnInlineTopic" href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Health_Care_Policy">health care</a> to prove they can govern. If it falls apart, after all this time, they will look weak and ineffectual. Yet while they toil long days and nights trying to put together the votes, the bill itself has morphed into something the public fears. So passage could well become a short-lived political victory.<br />
Some numbers: According to CNN polls, almost 8 in 10 believe it will add to the deficit. When asked whether the Senate bill would help your family a resounding 75 percent said no. And will it increase your taxes? Eighty-five percent said you bet it will.<br />
So why not have a <a class="cnnInlineTopic" href="http://topics.cnn.com/topics/U_S_Republican_Party_Politics">GOP</a> candidate in Kentucky inject health care into a state senate race? "Keep the big hand of government out of our personal health care decisions," one Higdon ad warned ominously. One Democratic strategist familiar with the race says the ad didn't matter much since not enough people saw it to have a real impact.<br />
Beyond Kentucky, the Democrats also protest on health care: The issue is misunderstood, they say. We are just losing the spin war and that will change, they say. Even if all of that is true, there's something else to understand: Once health care passes, it's still going to be unpopular. At least until the Democrats can prove why it works, and that could take a very long time.<br />
The Republicans haven't exactly covered themselves in legislative glory, either. They might have had a real shot at success -- if that's what they really wanted -- if they had called the president's bluff. They might have looked for some areas of agreement on health care that could be passed with bipartisan votes. Instead, they opted for the "just say no" strategy.<br />
It's a bad idea, but it's working. Why? Because "no" works when you're opposing something that is unpopular.<br />
So maybe, as the Democrats say, this GOP Kentucky state senate victory was an outlier. "Since inauguration, there have been five races where national issues have been on the ballot and in each and every one of them ... Democrats won," says Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Hari Sevugan. "The real harbinger of things to come ... is the deep split in the Republican Party that is allowing a right wing fringe to take over, purge moderates and present a fundamentalist agenda to voters."<br />
Gee, sounds like the Democrats are also happy to nationalize the upcoming midterm elections -- against the Republicans. As for the voters, they're just looking for results.<br />
<div class="cnnInline"><i>The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Gloria Borger.</i><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-91646846869525357392009-12-17T00:33:00.000-04:002009-12-17T00:33:11.397-04:00Tea Party Movement Evolves Into Political Force With Eye Toward 2010<div class="source"> FOXNews.com <br />
</div><div class="deck" id="story-dek"><span class="dateline"></span><br />
</div>The "tea party" movement that gained steam shortly after President Obama took office is seeing a surge in popularity, with a string of candidates and officials willing to take up its cause and a political infrastructure that's starting to mirror that of an actual political party.<br />
<br />
<div class="img format-6"> <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/15/tea-party-movement-evolves-political-force/?test=latestnews"><img alt="" src="http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Politics/teaparty_ariz_083109_monster_397x224.jpg" /></a> <div class="caption">In this Aug. 31 file photo, "tea party" demonstrators hold signs at a protest in Flagstaff, Ariz. (Reuters Photo)<br />
</div></div><div class="bodytext smalltext"> What started as a conservative protest klatch has evolved into a political force with enough muscle to potentially alter the course of the 2010 mid-term elections.<br />
The "tea party" movement that gained steam shortly after President Obama took office is seeing a surge in popularity with a string of candidates and officials willing to take up its cause and a political infrastructure that's starting to mirror that of an actual political party.<br />
The tea party activists rallied for smaller government and lower taxes again on Capitol Hill Tuesday afternoon -- among the headliners were Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and former Texas Rep. Dick Armey, whose FreedomWorks group has acted as somewhat of an umbrella organization.<br />
That's just the latest affirmation of tea party momentum:<br />
-- Various tea party groups and supporters, including FreedomWorks, are launching political action committees to back candidates financially in the 2010 elections.<br />
<div class="related vertical"> <div class="ad qu" id="qu_story_2"><iframe border="0" frameborder="0" height="184" id="ifr-qu_story_2" scrolling="no" width="190"></iframe></div></div>-- A Rasmussen poll last week showed that more voters would rather elect a "Tea Party" congressional candidate than a Republican one.<br />
-- A documentary film was recently released tracking the evolution of the movement.<br />
-- And several groups are pulling together the National Tea Party Convention in early February in Nashville, where former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is set to headline.<br />
Sherry Phillips, vice president of convention organizer Tea Party Nation, said the event will be a chance for hundreds of delegates to figure out the future of the movement.<br />
"It needs to move past just the rallies," Phillips told FoxNews.com. "We can't just stand around holding signs."<br />
Prominent Republicans including Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn plan to speak at the convention. Phillips said the overarching goal of the tea partiers is to affect the 2010 elections and support candidates who reflect their values.<br />
She said there's a split within the multifaceted movement over whether tea party should be big "T" or little "t." In other words, do the activists form their own party, officially, or try to influence the composition of the existing ones?<br />
Tea Party Nation opposes the creation of a new third party. And FreedomWorks' Matt Kibbe said the special election in upstate New York last month -- in which Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman drove the Republican candidate out of the race with the help of tea party activists -- can be considered an "anomaly." (Hoffman ended up losing narrowly to Democrat Bill Owens.)<br />
"I think a more practical solution is to take over the GOP," Kibbe said, explaining that the tea party movement can have the most impact by directing volunteers and money in support of GOP candidates who reflect their small-government values.<br />
He mentioned Pennsylvania, where Pat Toomey is carrying the conservative banner in the U.S. Senate race, and Florida, where Marco Rubio is doing the same, as two model states.<br />
"We're going to see a new set of leaders in Washington come November," Kibbe said.<br />
FreedomWorks, meanwhile, is planning to put its money where its mouth is in the coming months. Armey told Fox News his group will start a PAC, not to fund candidates directly but to fund activities who support them.<br />
Organizer Eric Odom recently launched his Liberty First PAC, and Phillips said her group is also considering creating a PAC.<br />
The Republican Party would prefer to invite tea partiers into the fold rather than run against them in general elections, and this may force a change in the makeup of the GOP itself.<br />
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said his hope is that "we can all come together."<br />
"This is the conservative party of the country," Steele said. "We offer that ... political infrastructure, if you will, if you want to run for office or if you want to be involved politically. This is the best place to do it."<br />
The Rasmussen poll spelled out the kind of vote-splitting trouble the tea party movement could stir if it forms a third party. It showed that 23 percent of people would pick a "Tea Party" candidate on a congressional ballot without knowing who that candidate is, while just 18 percent would pick the Republican. Thirty-six percent would pick a Democrat.<br />
The poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted Dec. 4-5 and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.<br />
<i>FoxNews.com's Judson Berger and Fox News' Molly Henneberg contributed to this report. <br />
</i><br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-27483804210852919842009-12-16T01:14:00.000-04:002009-12-16T01:14:36.326-04:00Senate Watch 2010<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9NHzJfKY9j0/SyhstPKPmtI/AAAAAAAAAWU/6tvHFTmgA6M/s1600-h/pic_homie_12-15-09_C.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9NHzJfKY9j0/SyhstPKPmtI/AAAAAAAAAWU/6tvHFTmgA6M/s640/pic_homie_12-15-09_C.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<span class="articlesubtitle">Twenty states to keep an eye on.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="articlesubtitle">By John J. Miller</span><br />
<br />
<span><span class="drop">A</span> year after the decimation of 2008, Republicans are newly confident about their election prospects in the Senate. Then again, they have almost nowhere to go but up: The GOP occupies only 40 seats, compared to 58 for the Democrats (plus a pair of “independent” allies, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont).<br />
<br />
As always, many races are foregone conclusions, such as the special election in Massachusetts next month to choose a successor to the late Ted Kennedy. But at least 20 of the 2010 Senate races are worth watching. Herewith, a state-by-state summary.<br />
<br />
<strong>ARIZONA</strong><strong>:</strong> Could Republican senator John McCain possibly lose two elections in a row? Last month, a Rasmussen poll of likely GOP primary voters suggested that Barack Obama may not be the last guy to defeat him: McCain clings to a measly two-point lead over former congressman J. D. Hayworth, 45 percent to 43 percent. Right now, Hayworth, a talk-radio host, is not even a declared candidate. There’s a significant gender gap, with McCain <a class="iAs" classname="iAs" href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWIxNzc1ZjVlN2EzOGU3Mzc1M2EzYWIyMGQ3NDllMDY=#" itxtdid="14884546" style="background-color: transparent ! important; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0.075em solid darkgreen ! important; color: darkgreen ! important; font-size: 100% ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; padding-bottom: 1px ! important; padding-left: 0pt; padding-right: 0pt; padding-top: 0pt; text-decoration: underline ! important;" target="_blank">winning</a> big among women and Hayworth well ahead among men. Democrats have yet to put forward a top-tier candidate. The primary is late, on August 24. <strong>LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION.</strong></span><br />
<br />
<span><strong>ARKANSAS</strong><strong>:</strong> Democratic senator Blanche Lincoln faces a tough election. A new Rasmussen poll of likely voters shows her trailing Republican state senator Gilbert Baker, 47 percent to 41 percent. Three other Republicans — businessman Curtis Coleman, activist Tom Cox, and state-senate majority leader Kim Hendren — also enjoy leads over Lincoln. Two-term incumbents are difficult to unseat, and Lincoln should not be underestimated — but neither should any of her challengers. <strong>LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION.<br />
</strong><br />
<strong>CALIFORNIA</strong><strong>:</strong> Conservatives always think Democrat Barbara Boxer will be more vulnerable than she really is. Their hope for 2010 is that an exceptionally strong GOP year finally will make the difference. On June 8, Republican primary voters will decide between state senator Chuck DeVore and former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina. Last month, a Rasmussen poll of likely voters showed Boxer leading both by double digits. <strong>LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION.</strong><br />
<br />
<strong>COLORADO</strong><strong>:</strong> Michael Bennet, the Democrat appointed to fill out the remainder of fellow Democrat Ken Salazar’s term when Salazar was appointed secretary of the interior, will seek a new term of his own. He faces a primary challenge from former state house speaker Andrew Romanoff. The Republican favorite is former lieutenant governor Jane Norton, who must survive her own primary against Weld County district attorney Ken Buck and former state senator Tom Wiens. In September, a Rasmussen poll of likely voters put Norton ahead of Bennet, 45 percent to 36 percent. <strong>TOSS-UP.<br />
</strong><br />
<strong>CONNECTICUT</strong><strong>:</strong> It once seemed as if Democrat Christopher Dodd enjoyed a lifetime appointment to the Senate. Now scandals have made his reelection an iffy proposition. Last week, a Rasmussen poll of likely voters gave him an unfavorable rating of 58 percent. The same survey showed former Republican congressman Rob Simmons leading Dodd in a potential match-up by 13 points. Another declared GOP candidate, Linda McMahon — the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, the fake-wrestling company — was ahead of Dodd by 6 points. Simmons is almost certainly the better general-election contender. He may even become a slight favorite to oust the incumbent, assuming Dodd stays in the race, which is not a certainty. <strong>TOSS-UP.<br />
</strong><br />
<strong>DELAWARE</strong><strong>:</strong> This is a special election to complete the last four years of the term Joe Biden won on the day he was also elected vice president. The office is currently held by Biden’s former chief of staff, Ted Kaufman — a presumptive seat-warmer for Biden’s son, state attorney general Beau Biden, who is widely expected to announce his candidacy soon. On the GOP side, Rep. Mike Castle, a former governor, will make a strong bid in this Democratic-leaning state. A few polls have put Castle in front, but not by much. A Susquehanna Polling and Research survey gave the advantage to Biden. <strong>LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION.</strong><br />
<br />
<strong>FLORIDA</strong><strong>:</strong> Conservative Marco Rubio, a former state house speaker, continues to close the gap between himself and moderate governor Charlie Crist in what may be the country’s most-watched GOP primary. Rubio remains behind in the polls and in fundraising, but he has turned his long-shot bid into a serious challenge. His goal will be to pass Crist during the two-or-three-week sprint shortly before the August 24 primary. The presumptive Democratic nominee is Rep. Kendrick Meek, who probably can’t beat either Crist or Rubio. <strong>LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION.</strong><br />
<br />
<strong>ILLINOIS</strong><strong>:</strong> This is President Obama’s old seat. The current occupant is Democrat Roland Burris, the appointee of former Democratic governor Rod Blagojevich, whose federal corruption trial is scheduled for next year. Burris is stepping down. Several Democrats seek to replace him, including state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, Chicago Urban League president Cheryle Jackson, and state inspector general David Hoffman. On the GOP side, Rep. Mark Kirk appears to have the nomination locked up. He is one of the most liberal Republicans in the House. The failure of conservatives to put forward a genuine alternative speaks to their weakness in the state. Polls suggest a close general election. <strong>LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION.</strong> <br />
<br />
<strong>KANSAS</strong><strong>:</strong> Republican Sam Brownback is retiring from the Senate and running for governor. His successor almost certainly will be a fellow Republican. The real race here will take place not in November, but in the primary on August 3. Two GOP congressmen are in the mix: Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt. Last week, a poll of adults by SurveyUSA showed a close contest, with Moran at 37 percent, Tiahrt at 34 percent, and 29 percent undecided. <strong>LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION.</strong><br />
</span><br />
<strong>KENTUCKY:</strong> Party loyalists often worry when an incumbent retires, but many Republicans felt relieved when gaffe-prone senator Jim Bunning announced that he would not seek a third term. Potential GOP successors include Secretary of State Trey Grayson and eye doctor Rand Paul, who is the son of 1988 and 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul. Like his father, Paul is an advocate of small <a class="iAs" classname="iAs" href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWIxNzc1ZjVlN2EzOGU3Mzc1M2EzYWIyMGQ3NDllMDY=&w=MQ==#" itxtdid="11422195" style="background-color: transparent ! important; background-image: none; border-bottom: 0.075em solid darkgreen ! important; color: darkgreen ! important; font-size: 100% ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; padding-bottom: 1px ! important; padding-left: 0pt; padding-right: 0pt; padding-top: 0pt; text-decoration: underline ! important;" target="_blank">government</a> and a foreign-policy isolationist. Grayson will have the support of the party establishment. If Paul can rally his father’s campaign supporters — a small but passionate bunch — he could pull off a minor upset. Democrats will choose between Lieutenant Governor Daniel Mongiardo and Attorney General Jack Conway, with Mongiardo favored. The primary is on May 18. <strong>LEANING GOP RETENTION.</strong><br />
<br />
<strong>LOUISIANA</strong><strong>:</strong> Republican senator John Vitter would be a shoo-in for reelection, except for that business a couple of years ago about the prostitution ring. He remains the favorite against Democratic congressman Charlie Melancon, but Melancon has material for some of the year’s most blisteringly negative ads. <strong>LEANING REPUBLICAN RETENTION.</strong><br />
<br />
<strong>MISSOURI</strong><strong>:</strong> The retirement of GOP senator Kit Bond sets up a close race between two dynastic families in a classic swing state. GOP congressman Roy Blunt (father of former governor Matt Blunt) will square off against Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (daughter of former governor Mel Carnahan and former senator Jean Carnahan). Republicans are encouraged by the fact that although 2008 was a rotten year for them, John McCain still managed to carry Missouri by a slim margin. <strong>TOSS-UP.<br />
</strong><br />
<strong>NEVADA</strong><strong>:</strong> Will Harry Reid be Daschled in 2010? Tom Daschle, also a Democratic Senate majority leader, lost reelection because his constituents regarded him as too liberal. A December poll of likely voters by the <em>Las Vegas Review-Journal</em> points to Reid’s vulnerability. Former state senator Sue Lowden, a Miss America runner-up in 1973, leads Reid, 51 percent to 41 percent. Businessman Danny Tarkanian, the son of legendary UNLV basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian, also performs well against Reid, 48 percent to 42 percent. <strong>TOSS-UP.</strong><br />
<br />
<strong>NEW HAMPSHIRE</strong><strong>:</strong> The retirement of Republican Judd Gregg creates a pick-up opportunity for Democrats in a state that has been trending their way. Congressman Paul Hodes will be their nominee. Republican attorney general Kelly Ayotte will be a strong candidate as well. A Granite State poll of likely voters, released in October, showed Ayotte ahead of Hodes, 40 percent to 33 percent. <strong>TOSS-UP.<br />
</strong><br />
<strong>NEW YORK</strong><strong>:</strong> The Empire State will have two senatorial elections in 2010. The reelection of Democratic senator Chuck Schumer is all but assured. The other race will determine who completes the final two years of Hillary Clinton’s term. It’s potentially competitive. Clinton’s appointed successor, Kirsten Gillibrand, will carry the torch for the Democrats. A couple of Republicans would stand a chance of ousting her. Polls suggest that Rudy Giuliani would win easily and former governor George Pataki would run well. So far, neither man has declared. <strong>LEANING DEMOCRATIC RETENTION.<br />
</strong><br />
<strong>NORTH CAROLINA</strong><strong>:</strong> No incumbent has won reelection to Nixon nemesis Sam Ervin’s old Senate seat since Lyndon Johnson was president. Republican Richard Burr will try to succeed where Democrat Terry Sanford and Republican Lauch Faircloth failed. His likely Democratic foe is Secretary of State Elaine Marshall. In November, a Public Policy Polling survey of voters gave Burr a 4-point lead over a generic Democratic opponent and an 11-point lead — 45 percent to 34 percent — over Marshall. <strong>LEANING REPUBLICAN RETENTION.</strong><br />
<br />
<strong>NORTH DAKOTA</strong><strong>:</strong> Right now, there’s only one poll that matters — the one in the head of Republican governor John Hoeven. If he decides to challenge Democratic senator Byron Dorgan, he becomes an instant favorite. If he declines the opportunity, Dorgan almost certainly cruises to reelection. In November, a Zogby poll gave Hoeven a commanding lead, 55 percent to 36 percent. Expect Hoeven to announce his decision around the New Year. <strong>TOSS-UP.<br />
</strong><br />
<strong>OHIO</strong><strong>:</strong> In this open-seat race to succeed Republican George Voinovich, the GOP establishment has rallied around Rob Portman, a former congressman from Cincinnati as well as a budget director and trade diplomat during the Bush administration. Car dealer Tom Ganley also will compete for the Republican nomination. He has promised to spend up to $7 million of his own money running to Portman’s right, and his first television commercials were launched last month. Democrats will choose between Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher. Through the summer, polls showed both Brunner and Fisher beating Portman. By September, however, Portman had passed them and held a lead within the margin of error. <strong>TOSS-UP.<br />
</strong><br />
<strong>PENNSYLVANIA</strong><strong>:</strong> Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican-turned-Democrat, potentially faces two tough elections. The first is in the Democratic primary on May 18, when he faces Rep. Joe Sestak. Last week, a Rasmussen poll of likely primary voters showed Specter ahead 48 percent to 35 percent — up from just a 4-point lead in October. If Specter survives this contest, he will probably face former Republican congressman Pat Toomey in a general-election rematch of the 2004 GOP primary. Rasmussen shows Toomey leading both Specter (46 percent to 42 percent) and Sestak (44 percent to 38 percent). <strong>TOSS-UP.<br />
</strong><br />
<strong>TEXAS:</strong> Republican senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is running for governor and says she plans to resign her seat — though recently she has said it won’t be until after the March 4 GOP primary, which promises to be a close election between her and incumbent Rick Perry. If she wins, she will almost certainly step down — and create a race where there isn’t one today. If she loses, all bets are off. Conservative Michael Williams recently declared his candidacy. The field is bound to grow. <strong>LIKELY REPUBLICAN RETENTION.<br />
<br />
</strong><span class="bioline"><em>— John J. Miller is </em>NR’s<em> national reporter.</em></span><span><br />
</span><strong> </strong><span> </span><span><strong><br />
</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-57159185516931305422009-12-16T01:09:00.002-04:002009-12-16T01:09:35.743-04:00Paul Ryan and the future of the GOP<div id="postcontent">This <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/11/business-government-politics-reform-opinions-contributors-paul-ryan.html">commentary</a> from GOP thought leader Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin really sets the intellectual and political framework for where the GOP might be headed. He goes after Crony Capitalism, the melding of Big Money, Big Business and Big Goverment. This is what’s next. Here are some important bits:<br />
<blockquote>1) Since bringing us back from the precipice however, the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP] has morphed into crony capitalism at its worst. … No longer concerned with preserving overall financial market stability, Treasury’s walking around money continues to be deployed to reward the market’s Goliaths while letting its Davids suffer.<br />
2) Washington is working hard to nationalize other sectors of our economy too. The House Finance Committee is pushing a massive financial “reform” bill, effectively creating banking utility companies. The Treasury Department has effectively nationalized the housing finance sector, with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac demonstrating how fast big businesses, through a federally blessed and backed oligopoly, can fall. Now, on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, health care and energy lobbyists continue to fall over themselves to cut their deals–knowing that if they aren’t at the table, they’ll be on the menu.<br />
3) Big businesses’ frenzied political dealings are not driven by party or ideology, but rather by zero-sum thinking in which their gain must come from a competitor’s loss. Erecting barriers to competition is a key to maintaining advantage and market share. With Washington leading the way, it makes sense for the big boys to redirect their resources to their lobbying shop and government affairs office. They’re far less interested in expanding the economic pie than with making certain that they get their slice.<br />
4) For every encroachment into the market by the federal government–under the guise of “reform”–there exist pro-market alternatives that Republicans must articulate and passionately defend. University of Chicago’s Luigi Zingales, who has <a href="http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/capitalism-after-the-crisis">written extensively</a> on the issue of crony capitalism, reminds policymakers that the path forward requires “adopting a pro-market, rather than pro-business, approach.”<br />
</blockquote></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-44084370649617942222009-12-16T01:06:00.002-04:002009-12-16T01:06:22.750-04:00Ex-Kennedy Aide In Fraud BustFeds: Senate office manager stole $75,000 in bonus payment scheme<br />
<br />
DECEMBER 15--The former office manager for the late Senator Ted Kennedy was indicted today on federal theft and fraud charges for allegedly pocketing more than $75,000 in unauthorized bonus payments over five years. Ngozi Pole, 39, was named today in a six-count felony indictment filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. (a copy of the charging document can be found below). According to prosecutors, Pole, pictured at right, was in charge of processing bonus payments approved by either Kennedy or his chief of staff. These payments, according to the indictment, came in two forms: a "holiday bonus" paid in December or January, and an "end-of-the-fiscal-year bonus" paid after September 30. The holiday bonuses ranged between $1000 and $2000, while the fiscal year bonuses "generally ranged from $3000 to $5000." These bonuses were not paid in lump sums, rather Kennedy employee salaries "were raised for a short period, after which employees' annual salaries were returned to their prior levels." Pole has been accused of keeping his salary at the inflated level for more than the prescribed period. From 2002-2007 he illegally pocketed more than $75,000, according to the indictment, and hid these larger-than-authorized payouts by submitting falsified records to successive Kennedy chiefs of staff. (12 pages)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-16962820619243132452009-12-15T01:04:00.002-04:002009-12-15T01:04:31.095-04:00Rep. Gordon is fourth Democratic retirement<div>By Aaron Blake - 12/14/09 10:40 AM ET <br />
</div><div class="txt">Democratic retirements are beginning to mount, after the announcement Monday that Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) will not seek reelection next year.<br />
<br />
Gordon said in a statement that, after a quarter-century in Congress, it’s time to retire.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="module"><div><div><div><div class="vbanner"><script type="text/javascript">
<!--//<![CDATA[
var m3_u = (location.protocol=='https:'?'https://ad.thehill.com/www/delivery/ajs.php':'http://ad.thehill.com/www/delivery/ajs.php');
var m3_r = Math.floor(Math.random()*99999999999);
if (!document.MAX_used) document.MAX_used = ',';
document.write ("<scr"+"ipt type='text/javascript' src='"+m3_u);
document.write ("?zoneid=100&block=1");
document.write ('&cb=' + m3_r);
if (document.MAX_used != ',') document.write ("&exclude=" + document.MAX_used);
document.write ("&loc=" + escape(window.location));
if (document.referrer) document.write ("&referer=" + escape(document.referrer));
if (document.context) document.write ("&context=" + escape(document.context));
if (document.mmm_fo) document.write ("&mmm_fo=1");
document.write ("'><\/scr"+"ipt>");
//]]>-->
</script> <script src="http://ad.thehill.com/www/delivery/ajs.php?zoneid=100&block=1&cb=40541049211&loc=http%3A//thehill.com/homenews/campaign/72051-rep-gordon-is-fourth-dem-retirement&referer=http%3A//www.realclearpolitics.com/" type="text/javascript">
</script> <script language="javascript">
var ipoll_c = 79;
var cmpid = "att/awarenessp2/300";
var ipoll_breakout = false;
var ipoll_link2 = "";
</script> <script language="javascript" src="http://hs.interpolls.com/inter_2_249.js">
</script> <br />
<div id="beacon_2959" style="left: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><img alt="" height="0" src="http://ad.thehill.com/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=2959&campaignid=2427&zoneid=100&channel_ids=,&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fcampaign%2F72051-rep-gordon-is-fourth-dem-retirement&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2F&cb=f00445488c" style="height: 0px; width: 0px;" width="0" /><br />
</div><script type="text/javascript">
document.context='YjoyOTU5fA==';
</script> <script id="ipollUnit_i9188708" language="javascript" src="http://hs.interpolls.com/cache/att/awarenessp2/300/inter_79.poll">
</script> <br />
<div id="envIpolli9188708" name="envIpolli9188708" onmouseout="window.ipollGObj_2_249['att/awarenessp2/300'].i9188708.checkMouse(event,this);" onmouseover="window.ipollGObj_2_249['att/awarenessp2/300'].i9188708.checkMouse(event,this);" style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; display: block; height: 250px; margin: auto; padding: 0px; position: relative; width: 300px; z-index: 1;"><div id="impIpolli9188708" style="height: 1px; left: 0px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: 0px; visibility: hidden; width: 1px; z-index: 0;"><img border="0" height="1" src="http://view.atdmt.com/CNT/view/182830125/direct;wi.1;hi.1/01/473883923393633000" style="-moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; -moz-background-origin: padding; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; border-collapse: collapse ! important; border-spacing: 0px ! important; border: 0px none; display: block ! important; list-style-image: none ! important; list-style-type: none ! important; margin: 0px; padding: 0px ! important; vertical-align: baseline ! important;" width="1" /><img border="0" height="1" src="http://hs.interpolls.com/imprimage.poll?a=64850&c=79&p=1&t=9&i=0&rnd=473883923393633000" style="-moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; -moz-background-origin: padding; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; border-collapse: collapse ! important; border-spacing: 0px ! important; border: 0px none; display: block ! important; list-style-image: none ! important; list-style-type: none ! important; margin: 0px; padding: 0px ! important; vertical-align: baseline ! important;" width="1" /> <br />
</div><object align="left" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" height="250" id="flashi9188708" style="-moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; -moz-background-origin: padding; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; border-collapse: collapse ! important; border-spacing: 0px ! important; border: 0px none; display: block ! important; list-style-image: none ! important; list-style-type: none ! important; margin: 0px; padding: 0px ! important; vertical-align: baseline ! important;" width="300"><param name="_cx" value="7937"><param name="_cy" value="6614"><param name="FlashVars" value=""><param name="Movie" value="http://hs.interpolls.com/creative/a/a/150u.swf?inA=64850&inC=79&inP=1&inD=thehill.com&inUid=window.ipollGObj_2_249['att/awarenessp2/300'].i9188708"><param name="Src" value="http://hs.interpolls.com/creative/a/a/150u.swf?inA=64850&inC=79&inP=1&inD=thehill.com&inUid=window.ipollGObj_2_249['att/awarenessp2/300'].i9188708"><param name="WMode" value="Transparent"><param name="Play" value="0"><param name="Loop" value="-1"><param name="Quality" value="High"><param name="SAlign" value=""><param name="Menu" value="-1"><param name="Base" value=""><param name="AllowScriptAccess" value="always"><param name="Scale" value="ShowAll"><param name="DeviceFont" value="0"><param name="EmbedMovie" value="0"><param name="BGColor" value="FFFFFF"><param name="SWRemote" value=""><param name="MovieData" value=""><param name="SeamlessTabbing" value="1"><param name="Profile" value="0"><param name="ProfileAddress" value=""><param name="ProfilePort" value="0"><param name="AllowNetworking" value="all"><param name="AllowFullScreen" value="false"> <embed style="border: 0px none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0% ! important; display: block ! important; vertical-align: baseline ! important; -moz-background-clip: border ! important; -moz-background-origin: padding ! important; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous ! important; border-collapse: collapse ! important; border-spacing: 0px ! important; list-style-type: none ! important; list-style-image: none ! important; list-style-position: outside ! important;" name="flashi9188708" src="http://hs.interpolls.com/creative/a/a/150u.swf?inA=64850&inC=79&inP=1&inD=thehill.com&inUid=window.ipollGObj_2_249[%27att/awarenessp2/300%27].i9188708" flashvars="ipollTarget1=http%3A//sw.interpolls.com/redir.poll%3Fc%3D79%26p%3D130608%26i%3D53166%26t%3Dhttp%253A//clk.atdmt.com/CNT/go/182830125/direct%253Bwi.1%253Bhi.1/01/&ipollTarget2=http%3A//sw.interpolls.com/redir.poll%3Fc%3D79%26p%3D130608%26i%3D53166%26t%3Dhttp%253A//clk.atdmt.com/CNT/go/182830125/direct%253Bwi.1%253Bhi.1/01/" quality="high" bgcolor="#ffffff" allowscriptaccess="always" swliveconnect="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" width="300" height="250"></object><br />
</div><noscript></noscript><br />
</div></div></div></div></div>“Every decision I have made in Congress has been with [constituents'] best interests in mind,” he said. “I hope the people here at home feel that I have served them as well as their good advice and views have served me.<br />
<br />
“When I was elected, I was the youngest member of the Tennessee congressional delegation; now I’m one of the oldest. In fact, I have members of my staff who weren’t even born when I took office. That tells me it’s time for a new chapter.”<br />
<div class="related"><div><h3>RELATED ARTICLES</h3></div><ul><li><a class="related" href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/72061-top-gop-recruit-set-to-run-for-gordons-seat">Top GOP recruit will run for Gordon's seat</a></li>
<li><a class="related" href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/72085-schakowsky-waves-off-significance-of-gordon-retirement">Schakowsky waves off significance of Gordon retirement</a></li>
</ul></div>Gordon joins Reps. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.), John Tanner (D-Tenn.) and Brian Baird (D-Wash.) in announcing his retirement in recent weeks. Also, Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) announced Friday that he will resign early to run for governor.<br />
<br />
Gordon became a leading GOP target as the year progressed. State Sen. Jim Tracy (R) recently began looking at a campaign against him.<br />
<br />
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-31580980496453180802009-12-14T13:31:00.000-04:002009-12-14T13:31:06.824-04:00Polls show Dems might lose Obama, Biden Senate seats<h2>Republicans seek strongest candidates for key midterm ballots</h2><div class="byline"><br />
</div><div class="byline"><br />
</div><div class="byline">By <a class="bylinelink" href="http://washingtontimes.com/staff/donald-lambro/">Donald Lambro</a><br />
</div>President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. won't be on the midterm ballot next year, but their former Senate seats will be, and both races are now either tossups or leaning Republican in high-visibility contests. <br />
Mr. Obama, who was a freshman senator from Illinois when he was elected president, and Mr. Biden, who was in his sixth term as a senator from Delaware, come from states that have been running strongly Democratic in past elections. No one doubts that Mr. Obama would have been a re-election shoo-in had he remained in the Senate and that Mr. Biden had his seat for the foreseeable future. <br />
But in another sign of political winds that appear to be blowing against the Democrats in the 2010 cycle, Republicans and independent political analysts say the chances are at least even that their seats could be taken over by two strong Republican candidates next November, when the GOP is expected to make gains in Congress and in the state governorships. <br />
"Not to steal one of President Obama's favorite words, but in Illinois and Delaware, Republicans have a truly historic opportunity to win both the president and vice president's Senate seats, and we're fortunate to have the strongest possible candidates already in the race," said Brian Walsh, chief spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. <br />
<strong>TWT RELATED STORIES:</strong><br />
• <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/14/senate-sends-11-trillion-bill-to-obama/" target="_blank">Senate sends $1.1 trillion pork-laden bill to Obama</a><br />
• <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/14/nelson-lieberman-balk-at-medicare-buy-in/" target="_blank">Nelson, Lieberman balk at Medicare buy-in</a><br />
• <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/14/lawmakers-wage-war-of-words-over-army-deal/" target="_blank">Powerful lawmakers clash over $3 billion Army contract</a><br />
"There is still a long way to go until the election, and we certainly expect polls will fluctuate, but it's clear that even in traditionally blue states, voters are demanding accountability and want to restore checks and balances in Washington," Mr. Walsh said. <br />
In Illinois, where Democrats are still reeling from an explosive "pay to play" corruption scandal that led to the arrest and impeachment of Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, five-term Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, the expected Republican nominee, is running for Mr. Obama's seat. The Democratic front-runner is state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, whom an opposing Democratic campaign adviser calls a "deeply flawed" candidate. <br />
Illinois Republican leaders have been pounding Democrats for widespread corruption in the state's government, noting Mr. Giannoulias' ties to real estate developer and Democratic fundraiser Tony Rezko, who was convicted last year of fraud and money laundering. <br />
"His family bank, where Alexi served as an officer, made loans to Tony Rezko, who is now sitting in a penitentiary," Republican state chairman Pat Brady said. <br />
But Democratic campaign strategists have been among Mr. Giannoulias' critics, too.<br />
"Alexi Giannoulias' own vulnerabilities are so significant, and far more damning than Kirk's among the electorate. ... His nomination would put Barack Obama's former Senate seat in extreme jeopardy for the Democrats," pollster Geoff Garin said last month in a widely distributed polling memo for Senate candidate David Hoffman, who is opposing Mr. Giannoulias for the Democratic nomination. <br />
Earlier this year, the White House and state Democratic leaders thought that state Attorney General Lisa Madigan would guarantee that Mr. Obama's seat would remain in Democratic hands. But after getting the full Oval Office treatment to persuade her to run, she turned down Mr. Obama. <br />
Party strategists say Mr. Giannoulias was their second choice, though White House adviser David Axelrod, who lobbied for Ms. Madigan, isn't enthusiastic about the turn of events. "She would have walked into the seat," he told the New York Times last month. <br />
"The Blago saga will hang heavy over our politics," Mr. Axelrod said. <br />
Sen. Roland W. Burris, who was appointed by Mr. Blagojevich to fill the vacancy, decided not to seek the election after he became the target of a Senate ethics committee investigation arising out of the corruption charges against Mr. Blagojevich. He was cleared of wrongdoing, but the panel said he had provided "incorrect, inconsistent, misleading" information about his conversations with the embattled governor and that his actions were "inappropriate." <br />
The latest Rasmussen poll has Mr. Kirk, a party moderate who represents the northern suburbs of Chicago and has regularly won support from Democrats and independents there, in a statistical dead heat with Mr. Giannoulias, trailing the Democrat by 42 percent to 39 percent last week. An earlier poll had them tied at 41 percent. <br />
Mr. Brady, who is privy to internal Republican Party polls, said Mr. Kirk "will win by five points or more. I don't think this is as close as pollsters say." <br />
The Cook Political Report and the Rothenberg Political Report are calling the contest a tossup, but both election handicappers think the Republicans have a good shot at taking the seat. <br />
"The state has a strongly Democratic bent, but the party's [corruption] problems, questions about Giannoulias, and an unusually appealing moderate Republican nominee give Democrats major problems in the Land of Lincoln," the latest Rothenberg Political Report said. <br />
Mr. Biden's seat in Delaware also appears vulnerable. Rep. Michael N. Castle, a Republican who has won nine statewide elections as the state's only House member, has been leading state Attorney General Beau Biden in polls. Mr. Biden has delayed saying whether he will be a candidate for the remaining four years of his father's term. <br />
Mr. Castle, a 70-year-old former governor, is a moderate whose cross-party appeal has drawn support from Democrats and independents over a political career that spans more than 40 years. A recent head-to-head voter survey by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic polling firm, showed Mr. Castle leading the younger Mr. Biden by 45 percent to 39 percent. <br />
A Public Policy Polling analysis of its findings pointed to two strong trends in Mr. Castle's favor: a 52 percent to 23 percent lead among independent voters, and the fact that he draws far more support from Democrats than Mr. Biden does from Republicans. The analysis found that 48 percent of Democrats view the Republican lawmaker favorably, while 15 percent of Republicans have a positive view of the 40-year-old Mr. Biden. <br />
Independent analysts still think the vice president's son will enter the race, but there has been growing speculation about why he has not revealed his intentions more than two months after Mr. Castle announced his candidacy. He returned home in October after a year's tour of duty in Iraq and has been spending more time with his family while he considers his options. <br />
"Both personally and politically, this was necessary and smart. There probably isn't much of a need for Biden to establish his campaign early, since he doesn't need to build a brand-name recognition and certainly won't encounter any trouble raising money," said Jennifer Duffy, senior elections analyst at the Cook Political Report. <br />
Stuart Rothenberg has put the Delaware Senate race in his "lean Republican Takeover" column but cautions that "even if Beau Biden takes a pass on the contest, the combination of the state's Democratic bent and Castle's popularity strongly suggest a very competitive contest." <br />
But many oddsmakers and analysts still think the edge goes to Mr. Castle. "This race is close, and Biden, if he gets in the race, will have a decent shot at winning. But Mike Castle looked like the favorite last winter, and nine months later he still does," said an analysis on Public Policy Polling's Web site. <br />
<br />
<h2> </h2>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-87956305251179888782009-12-14T01:19:00.002-04:002009-12-14T01:19:34.700-04:00Whole Foods Republicans<h2 class="subhead">The GOP needs to enlist voters who embrace a progressive lifestyle but not progressive politics.</h2><h2 class="subhead"> </h2><h3 class="byline">By <a href="http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=MICHAEL+J.+PETRILLI&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND">MICHAEL J. PETRILLI</a> </h3>The Republican Party is resurgent—or so goes the conventional wisdom. With its gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey, an energized "tea party" base, and an administration overreaching on health care, climate change and spending, 2010 could shape up to be 1994 all over again.<br />
Maybe. The political landscape sure looks greener than it did a year ago, when talk of a permanent Democratic majority was omnipresent. But before John Boehner starts measuring the drapes in the Speaker's office, or the party exults about its possibilities in 2012, it's worth noting that some of the key trends driving President Barack Obama's strong victory in 2008 haven't disappeared. Republicans need to address them head-on if they want to lead a majority party again.<br />
<a href="" name="U10332310332RO"></a>There are the depressing numbers on young voters (two-thirds of whom voted for Mr. Obama), African-Americans and Latinos (95% and 67% went blue respectively). But these groups have voted Democratic for decades, and their strong turnout in 2008's historic election wasn't replicated this fall, nor is it likely to be replicated again. <br />
<a href="" name="U10332310332DV"></a>The voting patterns of the college-educated is another story. This is a group that, slowly but surely, is growing larger every year. About 30% of Americans 25 and older have at least a bachelor's degree; in 1988 that number was only 20% and in 1968 it was 10%. <br />
<a href="" name="U10332310332LDF"></a>As less-educated seniors pass away and better-educated 20- and 30-somethings take their place in the electorate, this bloc will exert growing influence. And here's the distressing news for the GOP: According to exit-poll data, a majority of college-educated voters (53%) pulled the lever for Mr. Obama in 2008—the first time a Democratic candidate has won this key segment since the 1970s.<br />
<div class="insetContent insetCol3wide embedType-image imageFormat-D"><div class="insetTree"> <div class="insetButton"><div class="insetZoomTargetBox"><div class="insettipBox"><div class="insettip"><a href="">View Full Image</a><br />
</div></div><a href=""><img alt="petrilli" border="0" height="174" hspace="0" src="http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AK663_petril_D_20091213174603.jpg" vspace="0" width="262" /></a></div><cite>David Gothard</cite> </div><div class="insetButton"> </div><div class="insetButton">Some in the GOP see this trend as an opportunity rather than a problem. Let the Democrats have the Starbucks set, goes the thinking, and we'll grab working-class families. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, for instance, wants to embrace "Sam's Club" Republicans. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee pitched himself in 2008 as the guy who "looks like your co-worker, not your boss." Even Mitt Romney blasted "Eastern elites." And of course there's Sarah Palin, whose entire brand is anti-intellectual. </div></div></div>To be sure, playing to personal identity is hardly novel, nor is it crazy. Bill Bishop and other political analysts have noted that people's politics are as much about their lifestyle choices as their policy positions. Republicans live in exurbs and small towns, drive pick-up trucks or SUVs, go to church every Sunday, and listen to country music. Well-heeled Democrats live in cities and close-in suburbs, drive hybrids or Volvos, hang out at bookshops, and frequent farmers' markets. These are stereotypes, of course, but they also contain some truth.<br />
Widening this cultural divide has long been part of the GOP playbook, going back to Nixon's attacks on "East Coast intellectuals" and forward to candidate Obama's arugula-eating tendencies. But with the white working class shrinking and the educated "creative class" growing, playing the populism card looks like a strategy of subtraction rather than addition. A more enlightened approach would be to go after college-educated voters, to make the GOP safe for smarties again.<br />
What's needed is a full-fledged effort to cultivate "Whole Foods Republicans"—independent-minded voters who embrace a progressive lifestyle but not progressive politics. These highly-educated indiividuals appreciate diversity and would never tell racist or homophobic jokes; they like living in walkable urban environments; they believe in environmental stewardship, community service and a spirit of inclusion. And yes, many shop at Whole Foods, which has become a symbol of progressive affluence but is also a good example of the free enterprise system at work. (Not to mention that its founder is a well-known libertarian who took to these pages to excoriate ObamaCare as inimical to market principles.)<br />
What makes these voters potential Republicans is that, lifestyle choices aside, they view big government with great suspicion. There's no law that someone who enjoys organic food, rides his bike to work, or wants a diverse school for his kids must also believe that the federal government should take over the health-care system or waste money on thousands of social programs with no evidence of effectiveness. Nor do highly educated people have to agree that a strong national defense is harmful to the cause of peace and international cooperation. <br />
So how to woo these voters to the Republican column? The first step is to stop denigrating intelligence and education. President George W. Bush's bantering about being a "C" student may have enamored "the man in the street," but it surely discouraged more than a few "A" students from feeling like part of the team. <br />
The same is true for Mrs. Palin's inability to name a single newspaper she reads. If the GOP doesn't want to be branded the "Party of Stupid," it could stand to nominate more people who can speak eloquently on complicated policy matters. <br />
Even more important is the party's message on divisive social issues. When some Republicans use homophobic language, express thinly disguised contempt toward immigrants, or ridicule heartfelt concerns for the environment, they affront the values of the educated class. And they lose votes they otherwise ought to win. <br />
The races in Virginia and New Jersey show what can happen when the GOP sticks to its core economic message instead of playing wedge politics. Both Republican candidates won majorities of college-educated voters. Their approach attracted Sam's Club Republicans and Whole Foods Republicans alike. <br />
<a href="" name="U10332310332ERH"></a>It's good news that America is becoming better educated, more inclusive, and more concerned about the environment. The Republican Party can either catch this wave, or watch its historic opportunity for "resurgence" wash away with the tides.<br />
<a href="" name="U10336612232IQF"></a> <strong>Mr. Petrilli is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a frequenter of the Whole Foods Market in Silver Spring, Md.</strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-3391013200550651832009-12-14T01:16:00.002-04:002009-12-14T01:16:50.349-04:00The Real Lessons of 1994<span class="deck">Voters punished Democrats for Hillarycare. They'll do the same for Obamacare.</span> <br />
by Jeffrey H. Anderson and Andy Wickersham <br />
12/21/2009, Volume 015, Issue 14 <br />
<script language="JavaScript">
<!-- //
function printPreview() {
var ArticlePreview = window.open('/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=17330&R=1644E1C9', 'ArticlePreview', 'status=no,menubar=yes,scrollbars=yes,width=630,height=470' );
ArticlePreview.focus();
}
// -->
</script><br />
<br />
<br />
Democratic senators and congressmen have been trying to convince each other, particularly their more conservative colleagues, that they'll all be better off in the 2010 elections--and will avoid a repeat of their 1994 debacle--if they pass Obama-care. Bill Clinton, half of the central duo in the failed attempt to pass Hillarycare in 1994, recently addressed Senate Democrats and sang the party-line tune. Speaking to reporters afterward, Clinton said, "I think it is good politics to pass this and to pass it as soon as they can. . . . The worst thing to do is nothing."<br />
But the evidence cuts the other way. Democrats did indeed get slaughtered in 1994--with Republicans taking over the House for the first time since the Truman administration--but it wasn't because they failed to pass Hil-lary-care. It was because they tried.<br />
It's true, there were no formal votes on a bill, so there was no chance for Democratic members to distance themselves officially from the plan. Nevertheless, voters knew that it was the more conservative Democrats (with the GOP, then as now the minority party, urging them on) who killed the bill--over their more liberal colleagues' objections.<br />
So who paid the price in 1994? Was it the typical Democrats, for trying to pass Hillarycare or their more conservative colleagues for stopping it?<br />
The question is timely, for Americans' notion of what their health care would be like under Obamacare is strikingly similar to what they thought it would be like under Hillarycare. A recent ABC News/<i>Washington Post</i> poll shows that, by 37 <br />
<table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td> <!--IFRAME Tag // Tag for network 5221: The Weekly Standard // Website: The Weekly Standard // Page: Article Pages // Placement: Medium Box (909279) // created at: Dec 7, 2009 3:53:37 PM --> <iframe frameborder="0" height="250" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="No" src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adiframe/3.0/5221/909279/0/170/ADTECH;target=_blank" width="300">&amp;lt;script language="javascript" src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/addyn/3.0/5221/909279/0/170/ADTECH;loc=700;target=_blank"&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/script&amp;gt;&amp;lt;noscript&amp;gt;&amp;lt;a href="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/3.0/5221/909279/0/170/ADTECH;loc=300" target="_blank"&amp;gt;&amp;lt;img src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adserv/3.0/5221/909279/0/170/ADTECH;loc=300" border="0" width="300" height="250"&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noscript&amp;gt;</iframe> <!-- End of IFRAME Tag --> </td></tr>
</tbody></table>to 19 percent, Americans think the quality of their health care would get worse, rather than better, under Obamacare. The same poll's nearly identical question about Hillarycare in 1994 also showed that Americans thought the quality of their health care would get worse, by 38 to 20 percent. What, then, really happened to Democrats in the 1994 election? We took liberal/conservative ratings from the American Conservative Union and divided congressional Democrats into ideological thirds: most conservative, typical, and most liberal. We then examined how each group of Democrats fared in seeking reelection in the wake of Hillarycare and compared those results with the reelection bids of Democrats in the congressional elections of the last 20 years.<br />
The conclusions are clear, and they defy the notion that the worst thing that Democrats could do is nothing. In the other nine elections over the past 20 years, the typical (middle-third) Democrats have done far better than the more conservative Democrats. In fact, conservative Democrats have lost 67 percent more often than their party's typical members. In 1994, that turned around completely: That year, <i>typical</i> Democrats lost 56 percent more often than their more conservative colleagues.<br />
In other words: Voters did punish Democrats for trying to pass Hillarycare, but they didn't punish them evenly--and they certainly didn't punish them for failing to pass it. Instead, voters went comparatively easy on the more conservative Democrats who opposed it.<br />
Conservative Democrats generally do worse than their colleagues in seeking reelection because they usually run in contested districts that either party can realistically win. They are often running on Republican--or at least highly disputed--turf. Conversely, the most liberal Democrats usually run in Democratic strongholds. Over the last two decades--apart from 1994--more conservative Democrats have been twice as apt to lose as other members of their party. Given the districts or states in which they run, this is not at all surprising. But what <i>is</i> surprising is this: In 1994, the more conservative Democrats erased that disadvantage.<br />
<br />
In 1994, the more conservative third of Democrats ran in states where the average margin of victory for President Clinton had been only 1.6 percentage points (compared to 5.6 percentage points nationally). Meanwhile, the other two-thirds of Democrats ran in states where Clinton's average margin of victory had been 7.7 percentage points. Despite the far greater challenge they faced in running on much less friendly soil, the more conservative Democrats won every bit as often in 1994 as other Democrats did--the only time in the past 20 years that they were able to pull off this improbable result. <br />
But what is most striking is how much better the conservative third did than the typical Democrats of the middle third. Compared with the more conservative Democrats, typical Democrats ran twice as often in the six most consistently Democratic states (those Democrats won by 10 percentage points or more in each of the past five presidential elections) and barely half as often in GOP states (those the GOP won in most of those elections). Despite this huge advantage in voter composition, they not only failed to win more often, they lost 56 percent more often.<br />
Swing-voters apparently (and rightly) blamed typical Democrats for advancing Hillarycare. Where independent voters were not really decisive--such as in the most liberal members' districts--this effect wasn't strongly felt. But where independents held sway, typical Democrats felt their wrath. And in 1994, the voters did this without the benefit of being able to consult concrete votes on the proposed health care <br />
<table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td> <!--IFRAME Tag // Tag for network 5221: The Weekly Standard // Website: The Weekly Standard // Page: Article Pages // Placement: Medium Box (909279) // created at: Dec 7, 2009 3:53:37 PM --> <iframe frameborder="0" height="250" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="No" src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adiframe/3.0/5221/909279/0/170/ADTECH;target=_blank" width="300">&amp;lt;script language="javascript" src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/addyn/3.0/5221/909279/0/170/ADTECH;loc=700;target=_blank"&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/script&amp;gt;&amp;lt;noscript&amp;gt;&amp;lt;a href="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adlink/3.0/5221/909279/0/170/ADTECH;loc=300" target="_blank"&amp;gt;&amp;lt;img src="http://adserver.adtechus.com/adserv/3.0/5221/909279/0/170/ADTECH;loc=300" border="0" width="300" height="250"&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/noscript&amp;gt;</iframe> <!-- End of IFRAME Tag --> </td></tr>
</tbody></table>legislation. They won't be similarly handicapped in 2010. In June of this year, a Fox News poll showed that (among those who had an opinion on the matter) 73 percent of independents approved of President Obama's job performance. After five months of debate over Obama's health care overhaul, the same poll now shows that only 40 percent of independents approve of his job performance.<br />
If Democrats want to go on an electoral suicide mission in the face of clear public opposition and try to pass a nation-changing piece of legislation by a party-line vote (both Social Security and Medicare were passed by majorities of both parties in at least one congressional chamber), they should consider one further fact. The proposed legislation won't take effect quickly, much of it not until 2014. Before then, we'll vote in two national elections. The American people would not only be able to vote out members who disregard their wishes and pass legislation they don't want. Through the election of other members, they would be able to repeal that legislation.<br />
In the wake of the Hillarycare debate in 1994, voters harshly punished typical Democratic members. As the calendar approaches 2010, many Democratic members face a potentially career-defining choice that will determine whether their constituents will regard them as being among the more conservative members of their party, or among its typical members. If 1994 is any guide, this determination could well decide their fate. The question for such Democratic members is this: Are you willing to die charging a hill that may well be retaken in 2010 and 2012 in your absence?<br />
<i>Jeffrey H. Anderson, a senior fellow in health care studies at the Pacific Research Institute, was the senior speechwriter for Secretary Mike Leavitt at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is the director of the Benjamin Rush Society. Andy Wickersham is a writer and consultant. </i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-54523024915541303482009-12-11T00:20:00.002-04:002009-12-11T00:20:34.791-04:00Democrats’ ‘big tent’ faces challenges from conservative members<strong>Newly elected moderate and conservative Democrats helped the party build a ‘big tent’ majority in the House. But those very same members – worrying about 2010 elections – are threatening Democrats' majority on major votes.</strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="photo"> <!-- height="253" --> <!--<img src="1.jpg" width="380" alt="" />--> <a href="http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/wp-content/assets/19/2563/article_photo1.jpg" id="article-photo-link"><img id="article-photo" src="http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/wp-content/assets/19/2563/article_photo1_sm.jpg" /></a> </div><br />
<br />
<div id="dateline">Washington<br />
</div><!-- content --> House Democrats fought their way back to power in 2006 and expanded their majority in 2008 by recruiting candidates who could win in conservative districts – a strategy that’s coming back to bite them as they try to move a sweeping legislative agenda.<br />
The “majority makers,” as Speaker Nancy Pelosi dubbed them, fit the moderate-to-conservative districts they aimed to win. They railed on big government, spending, and taxes. Some challenged the merits of government regulation, called for more limits on abortion rights, opposed any softening of illegal immigration policy, or appeared in photos toting rifles.<br />
Now, with legacy bills for Democrats on the line, many are voting that way. On issues ranging from healthcare and climate change to social issues, the “majority makers” often find themselves challenging the very majority they helped to create.<br />
At the same time, big bills on healthcare, climate change, and Wall Street regulation could spell the demise of Democrats’ majority in the 2010 elections, if conservative Democrats lose for voting outside the comfort zones of their districts. The influence of these Democrats in shaping key legislation is leading some traditional Democratic constituencies – such as consumer watchdogs – to express dismay over what’s emerging from bill-crafting House committees.<br />
“What these votes do is form an overall impression in voters’ minds on whether these members are too liberal for the district. I see these as tone-setting issues for 2010,” says David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report in Washington.<br />
Of 48 races ranked by the Cook Political Report as competitive in 2010, 36 are held by Democrats. In another 60 potentially competitive races, Democrats hold 45 of those seats, as well.<br />
“Democrats are in a bind,” says Mr. Wasserman. To hold the House in 2010, “they have to juice up their own base and retain independent voters.”<br />
With the balance in the House at 258 Democrats to 177 Republicans, the majority has some leeway to indulge dissent from its restive right wing. But leaders still need 218 votes to move a reform agenda. With the GOP closing ranks on important votes, Democrats can afford only 40 defections on big votes. For now, conservative or moderate Democrats from red districts are claiming most of them – and then some.<br />
Of the 39 House Democrats who opposed healthcare legislation in a Nov. 7 vote, 31 represent districts that backed GOP presidential nominee John McCain in 2008. Four others were elected by districts that voted for George W. Bush in 2004. The bill passed, 220 to 215.<br />
The big issues for most dissenting Democrats were the overall cost and concern that the bill did not do enough to rein in health costs in the longer term.<br />
“It was punitive toward small businesses, and it paid for reform by raising taxes rather than by squeezing the inefficiencies out of and modernizing our healthcare system,” said Rep. Jason Altmire (D) of Pennsylvania in a postvote statement. “Until we rein in skyrocketing healthcare costs, we will simply be perpetuating an inefficient system that is unsustainable over time.”<br />
Two days after the healthcare vote, the liberal activist group MoveOn.org Political Action launched television ads targeting seven lawmakers who voted against healthcare – six of them Democrats.<br />
Besides Mr. Altmire, the other Democrats were Reps. Mike Ross of Arkansas, Glenn Nye of Virginia, Rick Boucher of Virginia, and Larry Kissell and Heath Shuler of North Carolina.<br />
Freshmen facing the toughest reelection bids weren’t pressured to fall on their swords on this vote.<br />
“After carefully reviewing this legislation and hearing from thousands of Coloradans across my district, I could not support this bill,” said freshman Rep. Betsy Markey (D) of Colorado in a statement. Ms. Markey, who faces a tough reelection race in 2010, is the first Democrat to hold the seat since 1973. This “majority maker” got a pass on this vote – and a hug from Speaker Pelosi on the floor.<br />
<strong>Limits on abortion</strong><br />
Among the toughest negotiations was a call from social conservatives in the Democratic caucus to strengthen restrictions on funding abortion services in healthcare reform.<br />
Rep. Bart Stupak (D) of Michigan, who cosponsored the amendment with Rep. Joe Pitts (R) of Pennsylvania, claimed 40 Democrats willing to vote down the bill over this issue. At the 11th hour, Pelosi agreed to allow a floor vote on the amendment, which passed 240-194. Sixty-four Democrats joined all Republicans in adding these restrictions to the House bill, including 35 red-district Democrats. In all, 56 percent of Democrats who opposed healthcare reform also voted in favor of this amendment.<br />
After the vote, abortion rights Democrats announced that they have more than 40 votes against the final version of the bill, if the Senate fails to remove this provision in conference.<br />
<strong>Climate change</strong><br />
Most of the Democrats who opposed healthcare reform also voted against the majority on climate-change legislation, which narrowly passed the House, 219 to 212, on June 26. As with previous energy bills, fault lines in the vote reflect regional interests – notably, whether the region depends on coal for electricity – rather than strict party identification. But the more conservative ideology of the “majority makers” did play a role.<br />
“When Democrats expanded their base in 2006 and ’08, they brought in Democrats who represent very different constituencies. They are far more independent-minded, more moderate in ideology, and more pragmatic,” says G. Terry Madonna, director of the Franklin & Marshall College poll. “It’s making a big difference in key votes.<br />
“On issues like climate change,” he adds, “there’s a real fear on the part of many of these [new] Democrats that by meddling with the cap-and-trade system, you weaken the power of firms to compete and eventually we’ll be deep in recession and debt.”<br />
<strong>Managing the big tent</strong><br />
The strategy of reaching into GOP districts to expand the Democratic majority faces its starkest test as leaders try to rally a diverse caucus around major controversial bills.<br />
“Persuasion will only work to a limited extent. These are Democrats who are ideologically opposed to what the White House wants, and the only option [Democratic leaders] have is to lean on them,” says Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at Princeton University in New Jersey. “But there is a timidity in the speaker’s office of using that power and great fear of [the House] tipping back to the Republicans, as it did in 1994.”<br />
Questioned often on this point, Pelosi says managing a bigger tent is a challenge she’s glad to have, given the alternative. She still meets weekly with the freshman class of 2008 and, separately, with the class of 2006. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has set up a designated funding stream to help Democrats in marginal seats.<br />
“She has always said: You represent your district, but you also try to find consensus within the caucus,” says Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Pelosi.<br />
On the prospects of social Democrats bringing down healthcare reform over the abortion issue, he adds: “There is always this prevailing Washington wisdom that this hurdle is going to be the highest and you can’t overcome it. But through building consensus with the caucus we have gotten over those hurdles.”Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8141194014251521836.post-88641330689860962342009-12-11T00:19:00.002-04:002009-12-11T00:19:51.129-04:00Generic Congressional Vote<h2 id="main-poll-title"><br />
</h2><a href="" name="rcp-avg"></a><div id="polling-data-rcp"><h3>Polling Data</h3><table class="data"><tbody>
<tr><th class="noCenter">Poll</th><th class="date">Date</th><th>Sample</th><th>Republicans </th><th>Democrats </th><th class="spread">Spread</th></tr>
<tr class="rcpAvg"><td class="noCenter">RCP Average</td><td>11/5 - 12/7</td><td>--</td><td>44.2</td><td>43.4</td><td class="spread"><span style="color: red;">Republicans +0.8</span></td></tr>
<tr class="alt"><td class="noCenter"><a href="http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rkt5pqJYr5tM">Bloomberg</a></td><td>12/3 - 12/7</td><td>714 LV</td><td>42</td><td>38</td><td class="spread"><span style="color: red;">Republicans +4</span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="noCenter"><a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot">Rasmussen Reports</a></td><td>11/30 - 12/6</td><td>3500 LV</td><td>43</td><td>39</td><td class="spread"><span style="color: red;">Republicans +4</span></td></tr>
<tr class="alt"><td class="noCenter"><a href="http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-content/files/dcor111609fq12.web_.pdf">Democracy Corps (D)</a></td><td>11/12 - 11/16</td><td>875 LV</td><td>45</td><td>47</td><td class="spread"><span style="color: blue;">Democrats +2</span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="noCenter"><a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/17/rel17d.pdf">CNN/Opinion Research</a></td><td>11/13 - 11/15</td><td>928 RV</td><td>43</td><td>49</td><td class="spread"><span style="color: blue;">Democrats +6</span></td></tr>
<tr class="alt"><td class="noCenter"><a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/124226/Republicans-Edge-Ahead-Democrats-2010-Vote.aspx">Gallup</a></td><td>11/5 - 11/8</td><td>894 RV</td><td>48</td><td>44</td><td class="spread"><span style="color: red;">Republicans +4</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div class="foot"><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html#polls">See All Generic Congressional Vote Polling Data</a><br />
</div></div><a href="" name="config-modules"></a><a href="" name="short-news"></a><h3>Recent Commentary & News Stories</h3>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0