If you haven’t seen this, you should…
Keep in mind, this is not Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck calling Dodd a liar – this CNN calling Chris Dodd a liar. The man was already in hot water, and now he’s not only in trouble for giving his AIG friends loopholes – he put in the loopholes and then went on TV to deny his actions. Listen, I don’t care whether the administration wanted it or whether he thought it was an innocent little thing at the time – he messed up big time and he is rightly going to pay the price for it. The question is what that price will be.
Dodd’s Connecticut seat should be solid blue, but normal rules tend to fly out the window when the incumbent sinks the economy and then lies about it on national TV. Former Congressman Rob Simmons already has one poll showing him ahead in their upcoming contest, and while it’s going to be close, this is definitely becoming one of our top pickup opportunities in 2010.
Personally, I think Chris Dodd is becoming a national embarrassment rather than a Democratic one – so watching him make a mockery of our government is not necessarily an occasion for GOP celebration. That said, somewhere in Connecticut, Rob Simmons is probably laughing his head off and popping open a bottle of champagne – and I’m guessing that he’ll get a lot more opportunities to do so between now and the election.
Congratulations, Senator Simmons.
This has to be the first 2012 general election poll… Not good news for Gov. Palin:
Public Policy Polling 2012 Obama vs. Palin General Election Poll
- Barack Obama 55%
- Sarah Palin 35%
PPP conducted a national survey of 691 voters from March 13th-15th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-3.7%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.
As a Romney supporter, no matter how much I would like to revel in Palin getting crushed by 20, it would be intellectually dishonest for myself (or anyone else) to put so much stock into one poll 8 weeks into Obama’s presidency.
Update: Commenter Tommy Boy’s relevant analysis should be taken into account.
I really enjoy reading Chris Cillizza’s column, so I will skip all of the unpleasantness in regards to describing his all-too-cliche “insiders say so-and-so is not being well served by their inner circle” article on Gov. Sarah Palin’s staff.
What is extremely interesting about the article is the introduction to the people that are behind Gov. Palin’s nascent presidential campaign vis-a-vis SarahPac that it provides. Not a lot has been written about these insiders, so I will confidently proclaim this article as essential reading on the race.
Here are the notables per Cillizza’s column:
• John Coale: Coale, a well-known Washington lawyer and the husband of Fox News Channel’s Greta Van Susteren, drew national media attention when he endorsed Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid in protest of the way in which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who he backed in the primary, was treated. Coale, in an interview with the Fix, described himself simply as a “friend” of the Alaska governor but acknowledged that he suggested she start a leadership PAC and helped her navigate through some of the questions surrounding her family that lingered after the campaign. Others familiar with Palin’s political team insist that Coale has far more power than he is letting on — essentially helping to run Sarah PAC. Coale demurred on that front, noting only that he talks to Palin regularly and that she is a “fascinating person” who is “definitely not what the right thinks or the left thinks.”
• Meg Stapleton: Stapleton serves as the Alaska spokeswoman for Sarah PAC after having played a similar role for the governor during the vice presidential campaign and in the governor’s office. Stapleton has been the lead defender of Palin from barbs thrown at her — often from those allied with McCain — in the aftermath of the 2008 campaign and, generally, wins positive reviews from Washington insiders not directly allied with the governor.
• Pam Pryor: Pryor is the Washington spokesperson for Sarah PAC after serving as a senior adviser to the Republican National Committee during last year’s general election campaign. Pryor has previously served in a variety of political jobs in Washington including as press secretary and chief of staff to former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts.
• Becki Donatelli: Donatelli, as we reported a few weeks ago, is officially running Sarah PAC. She is the chairman of Campaign Solutions, a fundraising and Internet strategy firm based in Virginia.
Be sure to read the article in its entirety here.
It was terrible, costly, tragic, and quite possibly wrong from the start… BUT, six years later, we have won. Let there be no mistake.
For all the Iraqi civilians who risked their lives in pursuit of democracy.
For former President George W. Bush, despite all his flaws, pushing forward with the Surge in Iraq’s darkest hour.
For Barack Obama promising a responsible withdrawal that retains the advantages for which we have fought so hard.
For all our fellow Americans who lost their lives and their grieving families, we are forever in your debt.
Six years later, light has appeared at the end of the tunnel.
I’m sure this test has been posted before on the site, but I thought it would be interesting to gauge the present political instincts of contributors and readers in a world of trillion-dollar deficits, bailouts, and President Obama. I am happily still a member of the libertarian right, with an economic left/right score of 2.12 and a social libertarian/authoritarian score of -3.54. Where do you stand? List your scores in the comments section.
The latest Pew survey has mixed results for Republicans. Most of the results look good from our standpoint, but certainly not all of them.
Obama’s approval rating is down a bit, consistent with other polls, from 64% to 59%. Most of his bailout and stimulus proposals enjoy decent support, and some very strong support. Protecting homeowners from foreclosure is a tie, though, and most are against saving GM and Chrysler (by a 2-1 margin).
The GOP congressional leadership, though, has horrible numbers, 28-51 approve/disapprove. Their biggest drop since the last survey is among Republicans, where their approval dropped from 55% to 43%.
The really good news, from my viewpoint, isn’t strictly a party thing. It’s that 70% still believe in a free market, with all its ups and downs (20% don’t), and a modest plurality (48-40) choose a smaller government over a bigger one (and that’s a slight improvement since October). However, some contradict somewhat their “free market” answer by saying that they’re OK with increased government control of the economy in the current situation — 54% answer yes to that.
There’s other good stuff in the poll, I just picked out a few highlights.
Timeline reveals Presidential and Democratic party undue dilligence, incompetence and/or duplicity worthy of a Gate-like scandal
Senator Barack Obama’s campaign contributions from AIG prior to Election Day 2008 may be irrelevant to his subsequent actions and inactions as President and President-Elect.
But it would seem a passing strange coincidence that the Illinois Democrat’s $101,332 “bonus” from AIG was second only to the $103,100 received by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), whose eponymous Amendment to the stimulus bill exempted corporate retention bonuses from Congressional bailout restrictions that were vested in 2008.
Given the outrage over the, just announced to the public over the weekend, AIG bonuses and subsequent revelations of Treasury dealings with AIG since the initial bailout last year and especially Dodd’s Amendment protecting the bonuses, President Obama obviously sensed the need to refute the obvious implication that he must have known about them. But, in trying to pass the buck, the following attempted exoneration actually indicts President Obama as even more responsible for the outrage:
On March 9, 2009, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York sent full details and supporting documentation to the Treasury Department about the Financial Products retention program.
One day later, Geithner was told about the $165 million in bonuses.
“Everyone knew that there were retention bonuses on the books,” an Obama administration source said, “but no one (in the Obama administration) knew about the $165 million for the Financial Products division” until March 5.
A look at the AIG timeline reveals the above as what what my fellow criminal defense lawyers call an “admission against interest”, and while many may find the payment of millions to AIG employees as outrageous in a civil sense, the trillions committed by Obama and the Democrats to non-stimulative bailouts and fundamental changes to America while delaying action to fix the credit crunch can only be regarded as criminally outrageous.
The timeline:
September 16, 2008 $85B to AIG – first bailout installment
November 2008 Treasury learns of existence of retention contracts but not details
February 2009 Dodd Amendment exempting AIG bonuses from restrictions inserted in Stimulus bill
February 11, 2009 Obama signs Stimulus bill
March 2, 2009 Obama grants latest $30B bailout installment to AIG
March 5, 2009 Obama learns bonuses are $165B
March 9, 2009 Treasury learns full details of bonuses
We assume President Obama read the stimulus bill before signing? He either knew of the Dodd Amendment or he didn’t.
If he didn’t know of the Amendment, then he didn’t do his due diligence and is guilty of mass incompetence.
If he did know of the Amendment, and signed the bill anyway, knowing of the ongoing investigations by Treasury and the Fed of AIG into the details of the retention contract bonuses, then he did not do his due diligence and is guilty of massive incompetence.
The bottom line is that President Barack Obama is responsible for the AIG retention contract bonuses since he signed the Stimulus Bill that made exempting the AIG bonuses matter of U.S. Law!
Add to this fact, that given that the United States owns 80% of AIG stock, President Obama is the de facto CEO of AIG.
Add to that fact, his prior bonuses from AIG when he was a candidate, and we may soon be referring to this matter as a Nixonian ObamAIG-gate, with Chris Dodd as John Dean.
________________________________________________________
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report
Gov. Romney advises the President to weight the short-term vs. long-term effects of his economic policy in an Op-Ed for the D.C. Examiner:
I believe it is that so far, Barack Obama has focused on the short term, on what I refer to as the first order effects of his policies. That initially plays well with some in the media and with the public at large. But investors are looking to see what the impact will be down the road. They don’t like what they see. President Obama’s economic policies fail to take into account second and third order effects.
In the president’s first address to Congress, he announced plans for a trillion-dollar health care plan and to take responsibility for a child from birth to its first job—universal healthcare, universal pre-school and universal higher education. To a lot of people, that sounds pretty good.But look at the consequences: a budget that grows discretionary spending by a whopping 12%, that produces trillion-dollar deficits and that means much more borrowing from the Chinese and others. We may be approaching the tipping point where people who are lending us all that money will begin to worry about what the dollar will be worth in the future.
President Obama’s excessive spending and borrowing could precipitate a crisis of confidence in our currency and lead to hyper-inflation, evaporating what is left of family savings and wiping out the middle class.
The President’s cap-and-trade plan also ignores second order effects. By placing a trillion dollar energy burden on companies that do business here and without requiring China and India and others to sign on, energy-intensive companies will move.
Emissions will grow in China even as they decline—along with jobs—here in the US. Even those who are worried about carbon emissions don’t call it America warming—they call it global warming.
The President’s corporate tax plan makes the same error. He proposes to tax multi-national companies that “export jobs to other countries.” Sounds good on the surface.But American companies that have subsidiaries doing business in other countries already pay taxes there; making them pay higher US taxes will make them uncompetitive in those markets and cost jobs here. And the multinationals themselves will simply relocate outside the US. The result will not be more jobs and more tax revenue as the President claims, but less.
The administration intends to sharply raise taxes on all investment income: interest, dividends and capital gains. But the pool of risk capital that finances new jobs and new businesses has already been shrunk by trillions of dollars; raising the tax on investment will shrink it further, depress job creation and result in less government revenue.
Even the President’s mortgage plan fails to adequately consider its long term consequences. By requiring investors and lenders to reduce the principal amount of their loan and by enabling bankruptcy judges to re-write mortgages, investors in the future will demand higher mortgage interest rates to compensate for their higher risk. Housing will suffer, as will responsible borrowers.
Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of the President’s proposals is that they appear to be taking America down the very path of big government, big spending and big borrowing that got us in so much trouble in the first place.
By ignoring the second order consequences of his policies, the President is deepening and lengthening this recession. He inherited a recession, yes, but he is making it worse.
Read the rest here.
For those that found the GOP’s lead in Rasmussen’s latest Generic Congressional Ballot poll to be, perhaps, a bit too good to be true, it should be noted that NPR’s first post-election poll shows the GOP tied with the Democrats in their generic congressional survey for the first time since 2004.
Also of note: the intensity of the opposition to both the stimulus bill and the President’s budget plan is greater than the intensity of support, as well as Obama’s approval coming in below 60%.
Hat-tip: The GOP Roots group.
News reports that Pres. Obama has considered forcing veterans to pay for treatment for service-related injuries have recently surfaced:
The Obama administration is considering making veterans use private insurance to pay for treatment of combat and service-related injuries. The plan would be an about-face on what veterans believe is a long-standing pledge to pay for health care costs that result from their military service.
But in a White House meeting Monday, veterans groups apparently failed to persuade President Obama to take the plan off the table.
“Veterans of all generations agree that this proposal is bad for the country and bad for veterans,” said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “If the president and the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] want to cut costs, they can start at AIG, not the VA.”
Under current policy, veterans are responsible for health care costs that are unrelated to their military service. Exceptions in some cases can be made for veterans who do not have private insurance or are 100 percent disabled.
The president spoke Monday at the Department of Veterans Affairs to commemorate its 20th anniversary and said he hopes to increase funding by $25 billion over the next five years. But he said nothing about the plan to bill private insurers for service-related medical care.
Does anyone else find it appalling that Obama feels more inclined to make veterans pay for injuries suffered in service to our country than he does to make people at the low end of the income scale pay any income tax?
In an addendum to the AIG bonus saga, Dan Spencer of the Examiner explains the following:
Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are – Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.
The Hill published a piece highlighting the new responsibility to fight the not-so-aptly-named Employee Free Choice Act Sen. John Thune has received. While I tended to to think the article exaggerated the significance of the EFCA on the Republican Congress’s legislative agenda and Thune’s subsequent role in the party, it details how he could use this to position himself for 2012:
Republicans have appointed Sen. John Thune to coordinate a broad campaign aimed at defeating legislation that would swell union ranks, and his reward for a job well done could be the party’s presidential nomination.
Even though the Employee Free Choice Act is not expected on the Senate floor until late spring or early summer, Thune (S.D.) is already spearheading efforts to focus the lobbying power of business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and coalitions such as the Alliance for Worker Freedom against the measure.
he chairman of the Senate Republican Conference traditionally organizes GOP-allied coalitions to promote or oppose legislation. Thune, however, took over the responsibility at the end of last year when Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) relinquished that part of his portfolio to focus on party messaging.
This has given Thune a useful platform from which to expand his network of allies and political contacts among the GOP’s core constituencies.
It is reminiscent of strategies used by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). Both Democratic senators chaired the Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, which coordinates between Senate Democratic and allied liberal coalitions, before launching their White House bids.
Political analysts, including Charlie Cook, say the fight over the Employee Free Choice Act could give the up-and-coming lawmaker a chance to break into the national spotlight in a big way when his party is suffering from what many consider a leadership crisis.
According to a local Utah news outlet, a study published on behalf of the American Legislative Exchange Council claims that the state finds itself in an enviable position:
A new study shows Utah may be poised to recover from the recession more quickly than most states. The reason, according to the conservative authors, is Utah’s business-friendly environment.
This is a conservative study with a lot of praise for Utah’s conservative Legislature and its policies, but the forecast is a pragmatic look at what businesses want and what Utah has.
Poised to attract more high-tech companies, more in research and medicine, in recreation, tourism and energy; Utah may have what it takes to climb out of the recession first.
One of the advantages comes in the area of tax policy, specifically income tax reform. Utah also has less government regulation and involvement is a plus for businesses.
Gov. Jon Huntsman is also working to promote Utah as a future renewable energy hub. Together, it could add up to an even more prosperous future for Utah.
“There probably is not another state in America right now with better practices, in terms of attracting, building and promulgating renewable energy,” Huntsman said.
If events play out as this study predicts, Jon Huntsman could use them to craft a formidable campaign message for 2012, arguing that under his watch, Utah emerged “stronger than ever, with a robust economy that led the nation out of one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression”.
Finally, Mark Sanford has decided to give it another go with fighting for better terms on South Carolina’s “stimulus” funds. Except this time, he has added a twist:
Rebuffed once, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is making a second bid to use $700 million in federal stimulus cash for debt payments — but this time for school construction.
The request by the governor to the White House on Tuesday comes a day after the Obama administration told Sanford the cash is intended to spare jobs and educate children. The administration denied permission to use the money to pay down other state obligations.
Sanford’s new request seeks approval to use federal cash to repay $577 million in school bonds. He says the cash would free up millions in debt payments. The rest would be used to repay other debt.
I, for one, consider this an astute move. It traps Obama and other prominent Dems, especially Jim Clyburn, who accused Sanford of placing politics before the needs (education being one of them) of South Carolinians. Furthermore, Sanford has provided a meaningful alternative purpose for the “stimulus” funds, potentially helping to separate him from the “Party of No” image many have associated with the GOP. Your move, Mr. President.
I used to find it a bit odd that a nation founded primarily by Anglo-Saxon Brits, reserves its greatest ethnic celebration for the Irish (apologies to Columbus and his progeny). That was before I channeled my inner-Irish roots, thanks primarily to the book, “Born Fighting” by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA).
I had long known, thanks to my Decatur, Alabama uncle’s post-”Roots” mid-70s TV mini-series family tree investigations, that we DeVines were Irish. The biggest pub in Dublin used to be named DeVine’s and legend has it that DeVines were Normans that fought with William the Conqueror (of the British Isles in 1066), discovered whiskey and became Irish. We are not shocked that the first and best (only?) French that could fight became Irish!, but I digress…
But it was only after Webb’s 2004 book, sub-titled “How the Scots-Irish Shaped America” did I come to fully appreciate my heritage, this despite my long admiration for my first great ethnic brother from my home state of South Carolina, Andrew Jackson. Growing up in the South, race and region were more of a defining reference than ethnicity, and when asked about my name or herirage, I usually gave a famous Archie Bunker response that I was just “a regular American” which I still consider the greatest privilege this side of Paradise (more on that later from the Saint we celebrate today).
I am thrilled that I now appreciate that the contributions of the Irish have not only shaped America, but saved the world. The Irish have been preservers of Judeo-Christian values and the greatest volunteers for military service, especially evn those that lost the War between the States. Without the Irish, it is likely that America would not have remained the Shining City on a Hill, as possibly the greatest Irish-American, Ronald Reagan so often referred to her. And certainly, the Light of Liberty from that City would not have shone on those the Kaiser, Nazis and Communists sought to enslave.
But the Patron Saint of Ireland (pictured holding a shamrock), did more than just drive snakes from his country and inspire the people that would later fight against earthly powers. No, the real snakes driven away by the former Roman slave, were serpents of Satan.
The real reason there is a Saint Patrick’s Day, is because of all the days he spent preaching the gospel of Christ to convert a nation to the Lord:
On Easter Day the missionary band having at their head the youth Benignus bearing aloft a copy of the Gospels, and followed by St. Patrick who with mitre and crozier was arrayed in full episcopal attire, proceeded in processional order to Tara. The druids and magicians put forth all their strength and employed all their incantations to maintain their sway over the Irish race, but the prayer and faith of Patrick achieved a glorious triumph. The druids by their incantations overspread the hill and surrounding plain with a cloud of worse than Egyptian darkness.
Patrick defied them to remove that cloud, and when all their efforts were made in vain, at his prayer the sun sent forth its rays and the brightest sunshine lit up the scene. Again by demoniac power the Arch-Druid Lochru, like Simon Magus of old, was lifted up high in the air, but when Patrick knelt in prayer the druid from his flight was dashed to pieces upon a rock.
Thus was the final blow given to paganism in the presence of all the assembled chieftains. It was, indeed, a momentous day for the Irish race.
Read the link above for the full life story of the man turned on the light of civilization among pagans and transformed a nation that helped save a world, but more importantly, as a Christian, saved souls for the next world, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (the three leaves of the shamrock is his symbol for the Holy Trinity).
And before ye begin the celebration, I am sure Saint Patrick would admonish moderation in all things (incl whiskey)!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report
Josef Stalin said that one death was a tragedy but that millions of deaths were a statistic.
I’ve thought about this in recent days with the $165 Million AIG bonuses. If anyone recalls, President Obama just six days ago signed a bill with $8 billion worth of earmarks-or nearly 50 AIG bonus payouts. The 9,000 wasteful earmarks were no big deal, even our own Mike DeVine said so though mostly for strategic reasons.
Yet, over the AIG bonuses, about 5% of the amount of lard that President Obama just doled out in pork that is mostly wasted, everyone in Washington is hyperventilating including the folks who gaves the Omnibus spending bill.
The phrase, “Get the beam out of your own eye.” comes to mind.
Just when I was starting to like Paul and his arguments on the economy, he goes and puts himself in this situation, that come July, will tarnish him worse than Tina Fey ever could. I mean I can’t figure out how someone who claims to lead a ‘movement’ would put himself in this position to get some cheap publicity. What awful timing, just when his economic ideas had a real chance at gaining popular populist momentum. Paging Gary Johnson, there is an opening for you!
The scene with Paul, filmed in early 2008, occurs about halfway through the movie, after Bruno gets the idea that you have to make a sex tape to become famous. (Stop reading here if you want to see the movie unspoiled.)
Cut to a nondescript hotel suite where Bruno sits across from Ron Paul. After a brief exchange of pleasantries, a light blows out on the set. Bruno apologizes for the technical difficulties and suggests that he and Paul wait in the other room while the crew fixes the light.
The other room, it turns out, is a bedroom. The lighting is low, and the film is now grainy—not unlike a sex tape—as it cuts to a hidden spy camera. There’s a spread of Champagne and strawberries and caviar on a table.
Bruno tells Paul to make himself comfortable. Paul sits down on the bed. Bruno turns on some music and starts dancing. Paul is visibly uneasy but doesn’t say anything at first. He picks up a newspaper and pretends to read it. “You can tell at each weird gay detail, he [chalks] it up to,This guy is European,” says one of the attendees.
Finally, Paul asks what’s going on. “Don’t worry about it, Dr. Paul,” says Bruno, who then unbuckles his belt and drops his pants. At that point, Paul snaps up and storms out of the room.
As Paul is walking away, you can hear him say, several times, something like, “This guy is a queer!” “The word queer comes out of his mouth three or four times,” says an attendee.
A spokeswoman for Paul confirmed that the episode took place but declined to provide details. “We don’t want it to distract from his message,” said press secretary Rachel Mills. “Now is the time when people need to be listening to him on economic issues.”
The techno-nerds may have preferred Obama’s embrace of social networking during the campaign, but they do not appreciate his handling of the economy.
Pres. Barack Obama got poor early grades on his economic decisions from a majority of readers who responded to the most recent Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal Business Pulse survey. About 37 percent said his economic work has been terrible and 17 percent said it was poor
“Hope and change…to what?” wrote Bonnie Werley. “Take a good look at your 401K! God help us!”
Reader John Gedney recommended this prescription for starting each day with a positive outlook: “1. Open a new file in your computer. 2. Name it ‘Barack Obama.’ 3. Send it to the Recycle Bin. 4. Empty the Recycle Bin. 5. Your PC will ask you: ‘Do you really want to get rid of ‘Barack Obama?’ 6. Firmly Click ‘Yes.’ 7. Feel better? Good! — Tomorrow we’ll do Nancy Pelosi.”
This is oldish (sometime last year), but I thought it fit in nicely after the big response we had last week to the “Progressive” political test. The test basically measures your moral values in 5 categories: harm, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity. High scores indicate that you take that concept of morality very seriously, while low scores mean you mostly dismiss it.
Here are my scores:
Harm: 3.0 (out of 5.0)
Fairness: 2.3 (out of 5.0)
Loyalty: 3.8 (out of 5.0)
Authority: 3.7 (out of 5.0)
Purity: 3.8 (out of 5.0)
I think this makes me something like a puritanical Genghis Khan. How do you score (it’s the first test at the top, titled Moral Foundations Questionnaire)?
Psst — Read my article about the one-year anniversary of Obama’s race speech over at New Majority.
—
Why precisely should a person in take pride in his ethnic or national heritage?
The notion that I speak against is not one of gratefulness: I am “proud” to be an American inasmuch as America stands for certain ideals as a trailblazer in the course of history. In that sense, I am proud of America’s great leaders, her documented ideas that have been ingrained into the national consciousness, even her government, at times. As a colloquialism, I may say that I am “proud” to be an American, insofar as I feel thankful and privileged to be an American — because America represents certain ideas. I certainly do not believe that being American grants me any inherent superiority to a Colombian, a Syrian, or an Uzbek. This type of pride is certainly not disputed or rebuked amongst those who subscribe to notions of “pride in heritage,” but yet I sense that there is a certain disconnect between what they believe and what I do.
Put simply, it is the difference between reverential pride — an impersonal, admiring thankfulness — and personalized pride: the sense that it somehow empowers you as an individual. This notion — the one that I speak against — is one of inherent ethnic heritage. At its worst, it represents an unenlightened tribalism: take, as an example, the notion that the Germans “gave us” Goethe — or that the Irish “produced” St. Patrick, for that matter. A cursory examination gives up the game very quickly: simply put, Goethe was a brilliant writer who so happened to be German. He was not “produced” by Germany, and people whose ancestors so happened to be German have no right to claim his legacy. His legacy is his.
Similarly, “Americans” did not “produce” Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was a man of great character who so happened to be American. To claim him as “one of us” based simply upon his nationality is to reduce a man of great stature to something considerably less than he was. To claim one’s self as being “part of” what Lincoln was a “part of” is nothing more than a shoddy attempt at grabbing a shortcut to acclamation and respectability. Likewise, to state that “being Irish” gives you a “fighting spirit” in any sense is silly at best and unflinchingly arrogant at worst; the latter being so in the sense that a man claims, by virtue of where his ancestors lived, traits for himself that he may or may not have acquired independently.
The more one thinks about it, the more ridiculous it becomes. “I am German, as was Goethe. Therefore, I come from the great culture and heritage of Goethe.” No, actually, you really don’t. You come from the country that Goethe happened to live in. One should be grateful to live in the West, where such opportunities were afforded to Goethe to obtain the type of education that he did and distribute his works in the way that he did. But one cannot help but sense a perverse sense of entitlement; a claim to a shortcut to greatness that is completely illusory. It is the difference between the reverential and the personalized.
And of course, it makes even less sense if one was born and raised in America, with only the vaguest connections to Germany. (To turn the argument on its head: as soon as one claims Goethe, he must also claim Hitler.) “German blood” does not exist, nor does “Irish blood,” “American blood,” or any other aspect of what has is usually chalked up to “heritage.” Indeed, heritage is a preposterous tribal social construct, and taking personal pride in falsely-claimed proscribed character traits should be rejected by all thinking men.
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
The Washington Post reports that the recent revelations about AIG paying executives $150 million in bonuses, after receiving $170 billion in taxpayer funds, have caused an outrage among the public and members of Congress, threatening to diminish Pres. Obama’s legislative clout:
President Obama’s apparent inability to block executive bonuses at insurance giant AIG has dealt a sharp blow to his young administration and is threatening to derail both public and congressional support for his ambitious political agenda.
Politicians in both parties flocked to express outrage over $165 million in bonuses paid out to executives at the company, demanding answers from the president and swamping yesterday’s rollout of his efforts to spark lending to small businesses.
The populist anger at the executives who ran their firms into the ground is increasingly blowing back on Obama, whom aides yesterday described as having little recourse in the face of legal contracts that guaranteed those bonuses.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, peppered with questions about why the president had not done more to block the bonuses at a company that has received $170 billion in taxpayer funds, struggled for an answer yesterday afternoon. He explained that government lawyers are “looking through contracts to see what can be done to wrest these bonuses from their recipients.”
Obama himself sought to channel the public’s sense of disbelief yesterday. “How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?” he said, declaring the bonuses an “outrage” that violate “fundamental values.”
White House aides grasped for actions that could soothe sentiment on Main Street and in the halls of Congress, where the fate of the new president’s sweeping agendas on health care, climate change and education will be decided. They suggested that the government will use its latest pledged installment of $30 billion for the ailing company to recover the millions in bonuses paid Friday.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the bonus issue added to his belief that there will be almost no Republican support for any expansion of a bank-bailout program that passed Congress last fall with broad bipartisan support.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Obama tried to shift the blame for this mess to Bush. Regardless, we can only hope that this incident will indeed weaken Obama’s political capital.
On the same topic, the honorable Chris Dodd has suggested levying an “AIG bonus tax”:
Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group (AIG: 0.9322, 0.1521, 19.5%) bonus recipients so the government could recoup some or all of the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. Within hours, the idea spread to both houses of Congress, with lawmakers proposing an AIG bonus tax.
The move represents somewhat of an about-face for the Senator.
While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” — which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.
The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is law.
Separately, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org.
Dodd, hurting politically, clearly wants to save face and distract the public from the fact that has such a close relationship with AIG, not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The GOP really needs to field a strong challenger to Dodd’s seat, in order to remove this embarassement from Washington.
From Scott Rasmussen this afternoon:
If the election were held today, would you vote for your district’s Republican or Democratic candidate?
- Republican – 41%
- Democrat – 38%
The national telephone survey of 3,500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports March 9-15, 2009. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 1 percentage point with a 95% level of confidence.
Long-time political observers will not miss the incredible importance of this poll. Just to bring home the point, I’ve looked through results from Pew, Research 2000, Diageo/Hotline, NBC/WSJ, CBS/Opinion Research, Battleground, and FOXNews/OpDyn – and I have not seen anywhere in recent history (going back to 2004) that the GOP was leading in a generic congressional ballot matchup. Indeed, the “normal” range for answers to this question is Democrats by 5-10 points.
Even in 1994, the great GOP takeover led by Newt and the Contract with America, the Democrats led the generic ballot by an average of roughly 4 points.
Even more remarkably, this comes as the partisan split in the country now stands at D+7 (41/34/26). It also coincides with Obama’s numbers remaining at the lowest of his Presidency thus far (at a 56/43 split).
And while this is good news for 2010, we’ve got a lot of work to do. Especially since these kinds of numbers are not going to hold as the economy improves at the beginning of next year.
Good news out Michigan today, as a new poll of the 2010 governor’s race shows all potential Republican contenders matching-up quite well against the Democratic frontrunner, Lt. Gov. John Cherry.
For the Republicans, the poll included Oakland County Executive Brooks Patterson, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Attorney General Mike Cox, Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, and State Senator Tom George (see the Official release for the Democratic Primary and full general election results):
Inside Michigan Politics 2010 Governor Poll
GOP Primary
- Brooks Patterson 22%
- Pete Hoekstra 17%
- Mike Cox 15%
- Terry Lynn Land 12%
- Tom George 2%
General Election
- Mike Cox (R) 41% – John Cherry (D) 34%
- Brooks Patterson (R) 38% – John Cherry (D) 34%
- Terry Lynn Land (R) 39%, John Cherry (D) 34%
3/4-10/09; 600 registered voters, 4.1% margin of error.
It seems to me that Meghan McCain has failed to learn the most fundamental lesson of her father’s election defeat, a lesson that Senator McCain learned the hard way and may never recover from.
In 2000, John McCain was the darling of the media, loved not only by moderate Republicans who were drawn to his budget-slashing, earmark-bashing straight talk, but also by a large number of Democrats, including the elites of liberal media like the New York Times, Arianna Huffington, and Bill Maher. No one got better press and more glowing approval. However, the reason for such treatment was always lost on McCain. The fawning affair had gone to his head, and he like many centrists in the party believed it was his leftward tilt on many issues that earned him so many glowing reviews, but that was not the case. By 2008, the real reason McCain was so admired in 2000 had become clear, and it also explained why such coverage never happened in 2008.
The media did not like John McCain in 2000 due to his positions or his straight talk. They liked him because he was attacking George Bush, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. His “agents of intolerance” line was like manna from Heaven to the mainstream press. This was the foundation of their adulation for McCain, and it would have stopped the moment be became the nominee and began targeting Vice President Gore and President Clinton.
Meghan McCain knows her father and knows he is the same man today he was in 2000. The difference was not his positions, but rather his target. The press loved when George Bush was deemed inexperienced by McCain but hated when that point was made about Barack Obama. Attacks that, if they were leveled at Bush, would have garnered McCain rave editorials, instead brought harsh media criticism. It was not because the attacks were unfounded, but because their target was a liberal Democrat and not the preferred “agents of intolerance”.
This brings us to this past week, and the public spat between Laura Ingraham and Meghan McCain. Ms. McCain might believe herself so wise and talented that the press can’t help but want to hear from her, but that just doesn’t mesh with the reality of the situation. Meghan, the media is not asking for interviews because they’re interested in your views. They are asking for them because you are the daughter of a famous Republican who is bashing other Republicans. Ms. McCain, you are one “agents of intolerance” comment away from full-fledged worship by the New York Times. Don’t you get it? Are you really so gullible as to believe that the press genuinely care about comments made by Laura Ingraham about your weight? Are you such a hypocrite that you can go on The View and denounce attacks on physical appearance while sitting next to Joy Behar, who belittles Rush Limbaugh’s weight on a daily basis?
It’s time to snap out of it, Meghan. You are falling into the same trap that seduced your father, and may have ended up costing him the presidency. The press will always love you, your dad, General Powell, and your ilk as long as you continue to bash the GOP. The moment your attention turns to a Democratic or a liberal policy, they will come down on you like a ton of bricks.
Imagine that in your Daily Beast column, instead of attacking Ann Coulter, you criticized Keith Olbermann and took him to task for the mean-spirited rhetoric he spewed at your father, and your mother, during the campaign. If you had ripped into him instead of Ms. Coulter, do you think you would have been asked to come on the Rachel Maddow Show? The View? Do you think the talking heads would have rallied to your defense if your target had been a liberal? Do you think the ladies on The View would have defended you against the ‘Worst Person’ label that no doubt would have come your way if you had been so bold?
Ms. McCain, until you realize that you are being used by liberals in the press to push anti-Republican propaganda, then you will fail to help bring about a renewal in our party. Being in this party is not just something that you squeeze on a resume between internships at SNL and Newsweek, it is far more important. So if you want to grow up and start taking things seriously, then great, we welcome your contribution. However, if all you plan to do is become a prop for the left to bash us with, then will you find the criticism by Ms. Ingraham to be mild compared to what comes next.
Something important occurred to me, when I was writing my last post. In my freshman year sociology class, I read a book by Robert Jackal, called “Moral Mazes”. It was basically a study of corporations, and how middle managers had little incentive to make savvy, long-term, business investments. If a machine breaks down in one factory, the manager can either properly repair it, or use slap-dash repairs. If he properly repairs it, then the cost of that repair shows up in his bottom line; that won’t do, because he has quota’s to meet and numbers to reach. So he makes some slap-dash repairs, secure in the knowledge that he’ll probably be somewhere else on the corporate ladder when the machine finally putters out.
It occurs to me, that we have a similar problem in our political process. The incentives for individual actors- campaign managers, candidates, strategists, consultants, etc- all lean towards temporary fixes. If a Republican Candidate in Texas, can win his constituency’s white majority by harping on immigration, he’ll do so; HE doesn’t have to worry about the fall-out among Hispanic voters. That’s the next guy’s problem. If a Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania can win working class ethnic whites by demonizing wealth and business, he’ll do it; it’s not his concern if suburbanites start to drift away from the Democratic party. Somebody will fix that problem, when it becomes an issue. The consultants and strategists are no better; they have to win a battle, before they’re given command of the war.
Because people are continually trying to move up the political ladder- especially at the national level- they’re not too concerned with the state of the lower rungs, or what their temporary fixes do to the long-term health of the movement they claim to represent. And this is not simply a phenomenon of ideological die-hards dividing with wedge issues. Oddly enough, the pragmatists are often the biggest offenders in this respect; their concern is always on winning the next election. Arlen Specter must stay, because Arlen Specter is the only one who can hold the seat in the next election. If you try to make long-term strategic arguments- that Specter gives the Democrats bi-partisan cover, that he prevents us from forming a coherent national mission or agenda, and that he’s slowly transforming the Pennsylvania GOP- the pragmatists will give you blank stares. He’s the only one who can win the next election, by gosh!
If we create a wound, to exploit a momentary fervor, we may find that the scar aches in the rain. If we save a Specter, to save a seat for our GOP, we may find that Specter is saving a seat for us, in his GOP. We must think strategically, not just tactically; as though the principles that we favor will live on past our personal influence on the debate. We need a candidate who will go into black communities in 2012, even though it won’t win him one vote in fifty; because black voters need to hear that conservatism isn’t just for white folks. We need a candidate who will resist the easy temptations of conventional wisdom and instead speak the hard truths of a conservative vision; if no one sees that vision now, they may never see it again. If you plant the seeds, the trees will eventually bear fruit. This is the Goldwater principle.
-
Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com
I’ve been following politics for approximately five years now, and I must say that some of the recycled garbage that’s coming out of both parties is already getting unspeakably old. Here we have the new Democratic mantra that the GOP is the “Party of No.”
Haven’t we heard that somewhere before?
Ah, yes: it’s the catchphrase used by every party in power to describe the opposition party when it, well, opposes, since Lord-knows-when. If we’ll remember, just a few years ago, it was the Republican Party that was trying to cast the Democrats as “obstructionists” and “the party of No” every time they, as the opposition party, would oppose. Remember the fight over Janice Rogers Brown? Anyone? Hello?
Such descriptions are fleeting and don’t really stick, simply because of the ephemeral nature of it all. The Rush-as-party-leader schtick has utterly failed (just as the Barbra-Streisand-as-party-leader schtick before it failed), according to a recent Rasmussen poll, so I guess it’s time to move onto the next cliched piece of political crap.
Politics as usual from the Party of Change. Yawn.
Last week, I posted on why the GOP lost the last two election cycles, A lot of people have focused on what the GOP should do going forward (and I plan on adding something to that later this week), but I want to focus on what they need to either stop doing or not start doing. Below is a partial list of non- and counter-productive activities I’ve either seen or could easily see happening in the near future:
There’s more (there always is), but this seems like a good place to start the discussion.
Update:
Don’t take what I’m saying to mean any politician should be immune from criticism from Republicans if they happen to be a Republican. I’m talking about nasty personal attacks that are in no real way related to the everyday concerns of the American public. For example, it’s fair and productive to criticize Gov Romney on healthcare if you focus on the bill he actually signed (as it was subsequently changed, I don’t think it’s fair to attack the plan as it is today), assuming you don’t like the results (I haven’t dug into it deeply, so I don’t have a position on it). It’s NOT fair or productive to complain about him being Mormon. I could list several issues for several candidates along these lines, but I hope you get my point.
As the Reagan wing-Bush wing civil war continues (Frum-Rush, McCain-Coulter, Perry-Hutchison, Knepper-Larison, Brooks-Everyone), the infighting has reached new lows. With the DNC/White House watching and exploiting every misstep made by GOP leaders and conservative talk-show hosts, Laura Ingraham (one of my fav’s) provided the media and liberal bloggers with another opportunity to paint conservatives as intolerant and exploitative.
What began as a humorous bit in response to Ms. McCain’s plea for the Republican party to expand their base, Laura Ingraham began mocking Meghan McCain’s weight on her Friday show. Not only were these comments disgusting and reprehensable, but they were beneath the character of this well known conservative personality.
Impersonating Ms. McCain, Ms. Ingraham said;
OK, I was really hoping that I was going to get that role in the Real World, but then I realized that, well, they don’t like plus-sized models.
Ms. McCain appeared on national television with this response;
What do young women think when I speak my mind about politics and I want to have a political discussion about the ideological future of the Republican Party, and the answer is, ‘She’s fat, she shouldn’t have an opinion.’ What kind of message are we sending young women? … It infuriates me. I’m a political writer on a blog, and all of a sudden I’m too fat to write?
Ms. Ingraham went too far when she mocked Ms. McCain’s weight, but the bottom line remains that it is not talk-show hosts who are dragging our party down, it is the lack of leadership from Republican politicians in DC. The Congressional leadership team are allowing themselves to be painted as puppets of the extreme right (whatever that is), lacking ideas and only interested in opposing the Obama administration, instead of putting country first. The DNC is exploiting this developing reputation.
Although debate is healthy, this civil war is becoming extremely destructive to the GOP. Not only have we moved past a policy debate to a very personal smear-fest between Reaganites and Bushies, but we are leaving a long lasting negative impression in the minds of voters which will impact the 2010 and 2012 elections. Even worse, the liberals are mocking and laughing at us as we implode, and that should bother us the most. Maybe it is time to ask Cantor, Boehner and McConnell to step aside and allow Romney, Palin and Huckabee to develop and communicate some talking points and blanket the Sunday shows and cable news networks? Someone has to provide leadership and a positive, reform message to voters, pundits, bloggers and talk-show hosts on the right, or this crisis will unravel out of control to the point where it will take a generation to recover and regain power.
Don’t believe me? Watch this political ad.
Given that the Republican Party is split between the “pragmatists” and the “true-believers”, I thought I’d take a look at one of the key questions surrounding that divide. Should Republicans embrace “80% conservatives” in blue areas of the country? So I’ve gone to the congressional results for the 2008 election. In, 2008 there were 27 Incumbent Republican congressman who held onto their seats in districts Obama carried. 15 of these incumbents had ACU scores above 80 in 2007, while 12 had ACU scores below 80 in 2007. First, let’s take a look at the top 5 performing GOP incumbents in these districts (measured by how far they ran ahead of McCain):
Top 5 incumbents in Obama districts:
Mike Castle (20 ACU)- +48
John McHugh (60 ACU)- +36
Don Manzullo (100 ACU)- +33
Tom Latham (84 ACU)- +33
Paul Ryan (96 ACU)- +32
Here we have a bit of a mix. The top two performers have ACU’s below 80%, while the remaining 3 have ACU’s above 80%. Both Manzullo and Ryan drastically outperformed McCain, though they are clear conservative stalwarts.
Next, let’s look at the bottom 5 GOP incumbents:
Bottom 5 incumbents in Obama districts:
Ken Calvert (88 ACU)- +3
Lee Terry (88 ACU)- +5
Brian Bilbray (92 ACU)- +8
Thaddeus McCotter (84 ACU)- +15
David Dreier (88 ACU)- +16
All of these men are in the above 80% camp, though none are as conservative as Ryan or Manzullo.
All in all, the average victorious incumbent from the above 80 camp, ran 20 points ahead of McCain in these districts. In contrast, the average victorious incumbent, from the below 80 camp, ran 29 points ahead of McCain in these districts.
Things are looking pretty good, so far, for our pragmatists. But, they shouldn’t put the champaigne on ice just yet. Because while these moderates run about 9 points ahead of McCain in Obama districts, they’re also significantly less conservative, as a group. Their average ACU score is 53, while the average ACU score is 92 for the conservative group. And in most cases, the moderates have an unnecessarily large margin of victory. Only 3 of the 12 individuals in our moderate group, won their race by fewer than 9%. In other words, all things being equal, had we replaced these moderates with an average conservative, we would have lost 3 of the 12 seats. Let’s take a look at how that new scenario compares to what actually happened. In reality, we ended with an ACU average, in these moderate seats, of 53. In our new reality, 3 moderate Republicans are replaced by Democrats (with, say, ACU’s of 0), while 9 are replaced by conservative Republicans. This leaves us with an average ACU of 69. The tide has turned, it seems, back to the “true-believers”. But, they shouldn’t count their…well, you know. These numbers are somewhat misleading, for two reasons. 1. There’s some value (it’s hard to measure it precisely) to simply having a party seat in the House, regardless of how the member votes. Because, of course, the House is organized by party, and even 20 ACU Mike Castle would vote for a Speaker Cantor. 2. This is only a study of incumbency. At best, this shows that once Republicans become incumbents, we’re better off if they’re conservative Republicans. How they get into Congress, and whether or not moderate ideology helps them get there, is a study for another day.
*Data on districts Obama carried culled from http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4161
Louisiana State University’s Daily Reveille published an article today detailing the effects of Bobby Jindal’s budget cuts on state education. One particular snippet caught my eye:
Revealed on a rainy Friday the 13th, Gov. Bobby Jindal’s $26.7 billion proposed state spending budget slashes higher education and health care funding significantly.
The budget proposal, for fiscal year 2009-2010 that starts July 1, is about 10 percent less than the state’s current budget and reduces health care spending by $413 million and higher education by $219 million. The national recession and slumping state revenue led to the fiscal belt-tightening.
Jindal said at a news conference Friday he is considering performance-based cuts, which could lessen the blow to LSU’s main campus in Baton Rouge. He said he wants to work with legislators to implement a performance-based funding formula that has been in the works for nearly two years.
Right now, the funding formula is based mainly on enrollment. The performance-based formula will also include factors like research and an institution’s ability to produce graduates in high-demand professional fields, Jindal said. The performance-based funding formula is being designed and will be implemented by the Louisiana Board of Regents, the governing body of public colleges and universities in the state.
First of all, I give the Governor credit for having the courage to suggest these rather sizable budget cuts. To paraphrase Mark Sanford (other people have probably said this, too), when times get tough, families and businesses cut back on their spending. Why should the government not follow suit? Secondly, I like the idea of perfomance-based cuts instead of strict across-the-board cuts. Slashing funding from ineffective educational programs and maintaining funding for productive programs will help optimize the allocation of Louisiana taxpayer dollars. Let’s hope Jindal follows through on this.
Next, Forbes writer Patricia Sellers has penned an extensive review of Meg Whitman’s young gubernatorial campaign. If you have some time, I recommend giving it a read. Sellers sheds some light on how Whitman plans on utilizing a vital business tool – best practices – to bring herself up to speed on policy proposals:
Only a Bain-trained ex-CEO would figure out how she wants to govern by visiting governors across the U.S. That’s what Whitman has been doing, seeking best practices from standout Republican leaders. To talk job creation, which she says is the key lever to lift the economy, she went to see the Texas governor, Rick Perry, last October. “More than half of all the new jobs created in the U.S. in 2008 were in Texas,” Whitman says, noting that Houston has become a magnet for “green” jobs. “If you can get taxes right and regulation right, you can create jobs.”
She has set a goal to create 2 million new jobs in California in four years. California dreamin’, her critics say. The Sacramento Bee accused her of “pie-in-the-sky promises” and argued that the state added only 250,000 jobs annually in good times. Poizner, too, says, “I’m an entrepreneur, and I like stretch goals, but I’ve seen no evidence at all that that’s achievable.” Says Whitman, who worked with economists at Stanford to come up with her target: “We’ll do it by streamlining regulations, restructuring and cutting taxes, spending less and spending smarter.”
To talk education, which accounts for half of California’s $100 billion annual budget, she visited former Florida governor Jeb Bush. They had met only once before, but he was flattered to spend a day with her and roll out his PowerPoint show. “I just liked her overall style of having the humility to seek answers,” he says. Bush explained to her how Florida boosted reading-test scores so dramatically that the lowest-income Hispanic student, on average, now outperforms the average California student. Bush told her about expanding charter schools, grading all schools, literally A through F, and rewarding them monetarily for good performance. Whitman wants to import some of the Florida reforms.
Meanwhile, she’s aiming to slash the state’s workforce at least 10% and expenses an additional $15 billion. For budget-cutting expertise, she turned to her mentor Romney, who was governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. He told her she’d need to scrutinize spending – “literally line by line, thousands of lines, and ask, ‘Why are we doing this?’” he recalls. “You have to peel the onion.” Whitman contends that she’ll have more political will to delve in and make cuts than the current governor does. “Being CEO of the state is not a popularity contest,” she says – an obvious dig at Schwarzenegger and a warning to the unions. “In the real world business leaders cut expenses until the company is healthy again,” she says.
Romney fans will love to see the close advisory role Mitt has played in Whitman’s campaign. Although Whitman will likely face a tough primary and even rougher general election should she secure the nomination, her plan to run California “like a business” offers intriguing promise.
I had this incredibly vivid dream last night that Bobby Jindal won the 2012 Republican nomination…
So this led me to wonder, have any of you ever had a prophetic dream (meaning one that actually came true?) If you care to share, please do so in the comments.
Believe it or not, I’m actually trying not to O.D. on the 2010 Louisiana Senate race, and I’m trying to avoid becoming an all-Cao-all-the-time guy. However, Alex Knepper pointed out over the weekend that there was actual news out of this race, so this post is actually somewhat necessary.
The big news is that Family Research Council president Tony Perkins decided against mounting a primary challenge – which I think was the right decision for him. However, the bigger news for me is that our friends at DailyKos commissioned a poll on Vitter’s re-election effort earlier this month, and they got back some surprising results. Considering Louisiana’s conservative voter base and historical tolerance for corruption, Vitter performed decently, but the numbers showed that he is definitely vulnerable in both the primary and general election campaigns. My preferred primary candidate, Rep. Joseph Cao, was not polled, but the numbers give us some tea leaves to see how a Cao challenge might shake out.
First off, Sen. Vitter got a 49% favorability rating, but a staggering 42% of voters view him unfavorably. That’s not horrible, but it’s far too close for my comfort level. Furthermore, 59% of voters would at least consider throwing Vitter out (32% want him gone, another 27% said they’d “consider” voting him out). And while 75% of Republicans said they wouldn’t consider dumping Vitter, their answers changed drastically when they were asked to vote in a hypothetical primary between Vitter, Secretary of State Jay Dardenne, and porn star Stormy Daniels. Vitter pulled in an embarrassing 43% of the vote, with 32% going to Dardenne, a scant 1% for Daniels, and a whopping 24% undecided. Luckily, both Vitter and Dardenne substantially outpolled Democratic Rep. Charlie Melancon former Rep. Don Cazayoux - but neither reached 50% of the vote against Melancon, the stronger of the two Dems polled, and Vitter failed to reach that level even against Cazayoux. Those numbers are bad enough, but they could get worse if the Dems’ strongest potential candidate, Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu decides to take the plunge.
So, I think it’s been clearly established that Vitter can and should be beaten, the only question in my mind is whether the deed should be done by Jay Dardenne or Joseph Cao. For me, that’s a no-brainer. Let’s be pessimistic and say that Cao would start the race with the same level of support given to Dardenne in the Kos poll – down by 11% to Vitter with roughly a quarter of GOP voters undecided. That gap is far from insurmountable, but it would take a lot of money and name recognition to catch up. Luckily, Cao is currently a hero to both the national and Louisiana GOP. He has good name recognition and could quickly rake in enough cash to match Vitter’s $2 million war-chest. Dardenne may do some good fundraising inside Louisiana, but nobody outside the state knows who he is, and it’s going to be hard for him to get the type of publicity and out-of-state that a Cao run would create, and it’s going to be out-of-state dollars that make all the difference in a race against an established incumbent. Furthermore, Cao’s reputation as a pragmatist could draw in a lot of independents and even conservative Democrats under Louisiana’s “jungle primary” system – and those voters could be the ticket to victory.
Dardenne would certainly give Vitter a serious run for his money, but as a relatively unknown state-level official, I don’t think he would ultimately have the wattage to pull off the upset. Joseph Cao, on the other hand, is currently one of the brighter stars in the GOP firmament, and his national profile would provide the extra boost needed to actually send Vitter packing – a fact which I think will become evident if and when he is added to these polls.
This is the proof that we needed to say that Vitter is not only a blot on the GOP’s reputation, but also that he is not the best guy to put forward from an electoral standpoint. Vitter’s favorbility-unfavorablity ratio is downright disturbing, and the lesser known Dardenne actually fares slightly better against the Dems. If Jay Dardenne can marginally outperform David Vitter, then the high-powered Cao and his well-organnized New Orleans base should be able to blow him out of the water.
Per The Atlantic, Gov. Palin will headline the RNC’s joint campaign fundraiser in June.
Marc Ambinder sees this as, “a sign of her enduring popularity with the Republican base and a signal that she has not foreclosed on the possibility of a run for president.”
Although I don’t subscribe to the idea that we should have “frontrunners” or rankings for the 2012 nomination when the primaries are still three years away, it is never too early to examine the fiscal report cards, courtesy of the CATO Institute, of those potential nominees.
Overall, the 2007-08 analysis offers a lot of encouraging signs for quite a few of the potential candidates, as a majority of were given strong grades. The most impressive scores belonged to Charlie Crist and Mark Sanford, while Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, John Huntsman Jr., Matt Blunt, and Rick Perry also recieved encouraging marks for their fiscal responsibility (neither Bobby Jindal nor Sarah Palin were included in the report, due to Jindal not being in office for the entire grading period and Palin because of the “peculiarities in that state’s budget that make interstate comparisons problematic”). The most disappointing score, however, belongs to MS Governor Haley Barbour.
Here is a list of grades by potential nominees, along with some other governors for comparison:
2007 -2008 Report Cards for potential 2012 GOP Candidates (covers period from 2004-2008):
Charlie Crist (R-FL)- A
Mark Sanford (R-SC)- A
Rick Perry (R-TX)- B
John Huntsman Jr. (R-UT)- B
Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)- B
Mitch Daniels (R-IN)- B
Matt Blunt (R-MO)- B
Haley Barbour (R-MS)- D
Other Governors of note (for comparison purposes):
Joe Manchin (D-WV)- A
Sonny Purdue (R-GA)- B
Phil Bredeson (D-TN)- B
Bill Richardson (D-NM)- B
Jim Gibbons (R-NV)- B
Brad Henry (D-OK)- B
Don Carcieri (R-RI)- B
Arnold Schwarzeneggar (R-CA)- C
Linda Lingle (R-HI)- C
Mike Beebe (D-AR)- C
Tim Kaine (D-VA)- D
Jodi Rell (R-CT)- F
Bob Riley (R-AL)- F
Rod Blagojevich (D-IL)- F
