Never too early to start handicapping Senate races, is it? The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza takes a (very, very, very) early look at which incumbents might be sweating out the next cycle.
A few thoughts of my own:
1. I seriously doubt that Kansas will be competitive, even with Brownback's retirement. I think it'll be one of those seats--like Oklahoma in '04, or Tennessee in '06--where the Democrats recruit a great candidate, get close in the polls, and then get blown out on Election Day.
2. In a similar vein, I think that knocking off Harry Reid is a pipe dream for Republicans. Tom Daschle did go down in 2004, but that was in the most Republican-friendly cycle in recent history. And South Dakota's a lot more Republican than is Nevada.
3. I had forgotten about Kentucky! But I have to concur with Cillizza's judgment. Republicans will have to cross their fingers and hope that Jim Bunning either 1) wises up and decides not to run again or 2) goes completely bonkers and gets forced out of office. Neither one is a particularly pleasant prospect.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Eine Klein Afghanmusik
Joe Klein really can't resist the urge to play foreign-policy maven, can he? Last we heard from him, he was warning us that the surge in Iraq was doomed--DOOMED! That wasn't quite the case, as you might recall.
Now he's telling us that the war in Afghanistan is doomed--DOOMED!--and we should get out as soon as possible. Funny; that's the exact same advice he gave us regarding Iraq.
I'm not saying Afghanistan is perfect. Far, far from it. But for Klein to criticize it as "aimless" raises the question: what does Klein want us to do, anyway? In this article he makes some Friedmanesque noises about Pakistan. But what are we going to do with Pakistan? Invade it? Threaten it? Klein, of course, is above such petty details.
Now he's telling us that the war in Afghanistan is doomed--DOOMED!--and we should get out as soon as possible. Funny; that's the exact same advice he gave us regarding Iraq.
I'm not saying Afghanistan is perfect. Far, far from it. But for Klein to criticize it as "aimless" raises the question: what does Klein want us to do, anyway? In this article he makes some Friedmanesque noises about Pakistan. But what are we going to do with Pakistan? Invade it? Threaten it? Klein, of course, is above such petty details.
Logolicious
Fascinating post on the creation of the soon-to-be-iconic (probably) Obama campaign logo. The real treat is seeing all the rejected logos. Would Obama have won out if he had campaigned beneath this image?
Well...probably he would've won anyway. But you never know. I don't know how many people could trust a man with a logo like that.
Well...probably he would've won anyway. But you never know. I don't know how many people could trust a man with a logo like that.
Quick Blago Reax
Hey, you can always count on this blog to be timely! The Blagojevich scandal happened only, what, a week ago? Nothing but the most breaking news here!
Harrumph. Anyway, I don't have much to say about Blagojevich himself. The man is clearly as corrupt as hell. Absurdly corrupt. Ludicrously corrupt. Comically corrupt. How shady can you get? The man was trying to sell a Senate seat for cold, hard cash. He didn't want politcal influence, or a cabinet position, or anything like that. He just wanted money.
The bigger picture: this is bad, bad for Obama, and not just from a PR-standpoint. He wanted to make his transition as controversy-free as possible. He wanted to hit the ground running, so to speak, to try to cram as much as he could into the first few weeks of his administration.
To do that, he needed to sell his new policies round-the-clock. The key was to build up support for big, controversial issues like his trillion-dollar stimulus package. But now, all that's shattered thanks to Blago. The political spotlight is on the scandal, and not on Obama's policies.
It's just an unwelcome distraction for Obama. It's not fatal, but it's going to make it that much more difficult to pass the trickier parts of his agenda.
Harrumph. Anyway, I don't have much to say about Blagojevich himself. The man is clearly as corrupt as hell. Absurdly corrupt. Ludicrously corrupt. Comically corrupt. How shady can you get? The man was trying to sell a Senate seat for cold, hard cash. He didn't want politcal influence, or a cabinet position, or anything like that. He just wanted money.
The bigger picture: this is bad, bad for Obama, and not just from a PR-standpoint. He wanted to make his transition as controversy-free as possible. He wanted to hit the ground running, so to speak, to try to cram as much as he could into the first few weeks of his administration.
To do that, he needed to sell his new policies round-the-clock. The key was to build up support for big, controversial issues like his trillion-dollar stimulus package. But now, all that's shattered thanks to Blago. The political spotlight is on the scandal, and not on Obama's policies.
It's just an unwelcome distraction for Obama. It's not fatal, but it's going to make it that much more difficult to pass the trickier parts of his agenda.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Cash Money Prizes
The often-insightful Michael Kinsley warns about the dangers of getting carried away with stimulus spending. Yes, Kinsley says, the nation does need a stimulus--but does it need to be so ridiculously big?
Even though amounts this large inevitably seem like toy money, it's a real trillion dollars we are talking about spending. Even if we spend the money wisely (on bridges to somewhere), we or future generations will still have to pay it off, with interest. Or, more likely, we will inflate it away, along with the life savings of those who were foolish enough to save all their lives.
And he's in favor of the stimulus! He thinks it's a good idea! And I have to agree with him. The stimulus package is both a) incredibly wasteful and b) completely essential. Doing nothing would be the worst possible decision.
I just wish our chosen course of action didn't seem like the second-worst decision possible. There's no easy out, is there? I guess that's why they call it a depression.
Even though amounts this large inevitably seem like toy money, it's a real trillion dollars we are talking about spending. Even if we spend the money wisely (on bridges to somewhere), we or future generations will still have to pay it off, with interest. Or, more likely, we will inflate it away, along with the life savings of those who were foolish enough to save all their lives.
And he's in favor of the stimulus! He thinks it's a good idea! And I have to agree with him. The stimulus package is both a) incredibly wasteful and b) completely essential. Doing nothing would be the worst possible decision.
I just wish our chosen course of action didn't seem like the second-worst decision possible. There's no easy out, is there? I guess that's why they call it a depression.
We're #20! We're #20!
Congratulations to my alma mater, Raleigh Charter High School, for being the 20th best high school in the nation--if US News & World Report is to be believed, of course.
Yes, I know this list is pretty much bunk, just like USNWR's "America's Top Colleges" and "America's Top Law Schools" and "America's Top Driver's Ed Schools" and whatever else they've put out. The numbers are pretty much pulled out of thing air, the criteria is questionable at best, and to call the results "definitive" is just plain laughable.
But hey--a guy can be proud of his high school. Go out there and show 'em what a charter school can do, RCHS!
Yes, I know this list is pretty much bunk, just like USNWR's "America's Top Colleges" and "America's Top Law Schools" and "America's Top Driver's Ed Schools" and whatever else they've put out. The numbers are pretty much pulled out of thing air, the criteria is questionable at best, and to call the results "definitive" is just plain laughable.
But hey--a guy can be proud of his high school. Go out there and show 'em what a charter school can do, RCHS!
Snake Oil
As 2008 draws to a close, I'd like to nominate "rising gas prices" as the most overrated story of the year. Prices have been tumbling for weeks, and now we learn that $1 a gallon gas isn't out of the question.
I'm not saying high gas prices were a figment of our imagination. Hey, I was living in Washington DC this summer. I saw gas selling for over $4 a gallon all over the city--and people were buying it, because that was the best they could do.
What I am saying is that predictions of a gaspocalypse have been highly overrated. I remember watching CNN over this summer, when they were running a regular feature called "$4 a Gallon--What's Next?" The general theme was that complete and total disaster was next: the end of America, the collapse of society, and so on and so forth.
It made good copy. If there's one thing people like to hear, it's that everybody else is hurting as much as they are. But didn't anybody realize that gas prices would, inevitably, drop back to more sane levels? That's what supply and demand is all about, right? Or am I taking crazy pills?
Gas won't stay low forever. But when it goes back up, it won't stay there forever, either. Let's try to keep our heads no matter what happens.
I'm not saying high gas prices were a figment of our imagination. Hey, I was living in Washington DC this summer. I saw gas selling for over $4 a gallon all over the city--and people were buying it, because that was the best they could do.
What I am saying is that predictions of a gaspocalypse have been highly overrated. I remember watching CNN over this summer, when they were running a regular feature called "$4 a Gallon--What's Next?" The general theme was that complete and total disaster was next: the end of America, the collapse of society, and so on and so forth.
It made good copy. If there's one thing people like to hear, it's that everybody else is hurting as much as they are. But didn't anybody realize that gas prices would, inevitably, drop back to more sane levels? That's what supply and demand is all about, right? Or am I taking crazy pills?
Gas won't stay low forever. But when it goes back up, it won't stay there forever, either. Let's try to keep our heads no matter what happens.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
America's Next Top Republican
Confused by the race for RNC chairman? OK, more important question first: do you care about the race for RNC chairman? If you do, then boy, this should be just your thing. RealClearPolitics helpfully breaks down the seven leading candidates for the job.
First of all, I'm impressed that so many people are in the mix. Maybe it's a sign that the GOP is a little healthier than we thought? These are impressive candidates; they wouldn't be running if they thought the job was tanatamount to being captain of the Titanic.
And on the flip side: maybe it's a sign the GOP is even more divided when we thought. The candidates aren't talking about fundraising and direct-mail. They're making this into a battle for the heart and soul of the GOP. And when every battle becomes an ideological one, and every conflict becomes an apocalyptic struggle between good and evil, it doesn't bode well for the Republican Party's future.
Who do I support? Gee, I dunno. Michael Steele always impressed me. But does he have the organization skills to run the RNC? Can he be an effective spokesman? I'm thinking "yes" to both questions, but I'm willing to be change my mind. Maybe this Chip Saltsman guy is the cure for what ails the Republicans? Or how about Saul Anuzis? Or Katon Dawson? Or...
First of all, I'm impressed that so many people are in the mix. Maybe it's a sign that the GOP is a little healthier than we thought? These are impressive candidates; they wouldn't be running if they thought the job was tanatamount to being captain of the Titanic.
And on the flip side: maybe it's a sign the GOP is even more divided when we thought. The candidates aren't talking about fundraising and direct-mail. They're making this into a battle for the heart and soul of the GOP. And when every battle becomes an ideological one, and every conflict becomes an apocalyptic struggle between good and evil, it doesn't bode well for the Republican Party's future.
Who do I support? Gee, I dunno. Michael Steele always impressed me. But does he have the organization skills to run the RNC? Can he be an effective spokesman? I'm thinking "yes" to both questions, but I'm willing to be change my mind. Maybe this Chip Saltsman guy is the cure for what ails the Republicans? Or how about Saul Anuzis? Or Katon Dawson? Or...
Money--It's a Gas
Karl Rove is hard at work in the Wall Street Journal today doing his best to create a new piece of CW: Obama's victory was all about cash. Granted, that's not exactly a "new" idea. But Rove would very much like it to be the idea that catches on.
And he makes some good points. I knew Obama had a big financial edge, but I never realized quite how mind-bogglingly huge it was:
A state-by-state analysis confirms the Obama advantage. Mr. Obama outspent Mr. McCain in Indiana nearly 7 to 1, in Virginia by more than 4 to 1, in Ohio by almost 2 to 1 and in North Carolina by nearly 3 to 2. Mr. Obama carried all four states.
To quote Edwin Starr, "Good God, y'all!" That can buy a lot of soft-focus ads on the evening news. In our National Elections class yesterday (the last one ever, thankfully), we talked about how money might have made the difference. Take the example of NC, for instance. Perhaps there was a large population of latent Democrats in the state. They had never voted before, though, because no one ever reached out to them. Obama's money changed that.
But Rove might put a wee too much emphasis on cash. He writes:
Mr. Obama also used his money to outmuscle Mr. McCain on the ground, with more staff, headquarters, mail and a larger get-out-the-vote effort. In mid-September the Obama campaign said its budget for Florida was $39 million. The actual number was probably larger. But in any case, Mr. McCain spent a mere $13.1 million in the state. Mr. Obama won Florida by 2.81 percentage points.
How much of that was money and how much was genuine enthusiasm for Obama? You can't neatly separate those two ideas. Enthusiasm generates money generates enthusiasm generates...you get the idea. It's like the cycle of violence, only fought with credit cards instead of grenades and rockets.
And he makes some good points. I knew Obama had a big financial edge, but I never realized quite how mind-bogglingly huge it was:
A state-by-state analysis confirms the Obama advantage. Mr. Obama outspent Mr. McCain in Indiana nearly 7 to 1, in Virginia by more than 4 to 1, in Ohio by almost 2 to 1 and in North Carolina by nearly 3 to 2. Mr. Obama carried all four states.
To quote Edwin Starr, "Good God, y'all!" That can buy a lot of soft-focus ads on the evening news. In our National Elections class yesterday (the last one ever, thankfully), we talked about how money might have made the difference. Take the example of NC, for instance. Perhaps there was a large population of latent Democrats in the state. They had never voted before, though, because no one ever reached out to them. Obama's money changed that.
But Rove might put a wee too much emphasis on cash. He writes:
Mr. Obama also used his money to outmuscle Mr. McCain on the ground, with more staff, headquarters, mail and a larger get-out-the-vote effort. In mid-September the Obama campaign said its budget for Florida was $39 million. The actual number was probably larger. But in any case, Mr. McCain spent a mere $13.1 million in the state. Mr. Obama won Florida by 2.81 percentage points.
How much of that was money and how much was genuine enthusiasm for Obama? You can't neatly separate those two ideas. Enthusiasm generates money generates enthusiasm generates...you get the idea. It's like the cycle of violence, only fought with credit cards instead of grenades and rockets.
Messin' with Texas
Good God, Rick Perry is still the governor of Texas? It seems like he's been there since I was in middle school. Come to think of it...he has been governor since I was in middle school. That was way back in 2000. And he's still alive and kicking!
But for how much longer? Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has her eye on Austin, whether or not Perry decides to run again in 2010. This would set up a real Clash of the Titans in the Lone Star State. Perry's survived tough challenges before; in 2006 he won re-election in a four-way free-for-all with a Democrat, a Republican-turned-Independent, and some guy named "Kinky." Kinky didn't do too badly, if you're wondering.
Hutchison is in a class of her own, though, and will probably be favored against Perry. I wonder: is she setting herself up as a presidential contender in 2012? People were talking her up as a VP just this year, and she'll only be 65 when 2012 rolls around. So, add it up:
Woman+Executive Experience+Big GOP State=A raging case of White House Fever
This is going to be interesting.
But for how much longer? Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has her eye on Austin, whether or not Perry decides to run again in 2010. This would set up a real Clash of the Titans in the Lone Star State. Perry's survived tough challenges before; in 2006 he won re-election in a four-way free-for-all with a Democrat, a Republican-turned-Independent, and some guy named "Kinky." Kinky didn't do too badly, if you're wondering.
Hutchison is in a class of her own, though, and will probably be favored against Perry. I wonder: is she setting herself up as a presidential contender in 2012? People were talking her up as a VP just this year, and she'll only be 65 when 2012 rolls around. So, add it up:
Woman+Executive Experience+Big GOP State=A raging case of White House Fever
This is going to be interesting.
What's Cookin'?
Some interesting advice from a few experienced GOP operatives, delivered via Charlie Cook. First, Cook makes a good point: right now, the situation is out of the GOP's hands. Obama is going to be the prime mover of politics for the next couple months:
If he makes more than a few strategic or tactical miscues, his honeymoon will be abbreviated and Republicans will have the opportunity to bounce back from two consecutive disastrous elections. If the Obama administration does well, things obviously won't look so good for the GOP.
The legendary Dean Smith was fond of citing a book called "The Power of Helplessness." Oxymoronic, yes, but that doesn't make it wrong. For now the best course of action for Republicans would be to keep their heads down. Give Obama his honeymoon. It's what the voters want; nothing's going to be gained by hammering Obama day-in-day-out.
Now on to those recommendations. The whole thing's well worth reading, but a few things stand out. One: we can't chalk the loss up to "Bush and the economy, end of story." Yes, the two Ws--Dubya and Wall Street--played a big part in the GOP's loss. More than that, though, was the appeal of "change." Change was what won this for Obama, and McCain's failure to embrace change was what sent him down to defeat.
Further notes:
This goes to the long-term trend of Republican losses in the suburbs. This is a trend that has been more than 20 years in the making and seems to be moving from the Northeast in a westerly direction. It's no longer just New Jersey and the Philly suburbs, but also the Denver suburbs, Maricopa County, Clark County, Orange County, etc. To me, the core reason we're losing them is that, as Republicans, we're not promising to fix the problems they're concerned about, including health care, education and retirement.
Now, I haven't read Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam's "Grand New Party" yet, but I understand this is what they're all about. People want an activist government, but not LBJ-style Great Society activism. They want a kinder, gentler sort of activism, one that guarantees them a piece of the good life. The government won't throw away trillions on grand social engineering projects. Instead, it makes life easier for everybody, particularly if that everybody happens to live in the middle class.
I tend to agree. But has the economic crisis changed things? To call the government's actions over the past few months "activist" is a criminal understatement. There's a reason people are starting to toss around the word "socialism" more and more. In a crisis like this, I think a succesful Republican Party needs to do more than appeal to middle-class concerns about home ownership and healthcare.
The GOP needs a BIG IDEA. The capitals should give you a sense of how big this idea needs to be. But what is it? That's what we're still searching for. And if I find it I'll be sure to let you know, dear reader. Or readers, hopefully.
If he makes more than a few strategic or tactical miscues, his honeymoon will be abbreviated and Republicans will have the opportunity to bounce back from two consecutive disastrous elections. If the Obama administration does well, things obviously won't look so good for the GOP.
The legendary Dean Smith was fond of citing a book called "The Power of Helplessness." Oxymoronic, yes, but that doesn't make it wrong. For now the best course of action for Republicans would be to keep their heads down. Give Obama his honeymoon. It's what the voters want; nothing's going to be gained by hammering Obama day-in-day-out.
Now on to those recommendations. The whole thing's well worth reading, but a few things stand out. One: we can't chalk the loss up to "Bush and the economy, end of story." Yes, the two Ws--Dubya and Wall Street--played a big part in the GOP's loss. More than that, though, was the appeal of "change." Change was what won this for Obama, and McCain's failure to embrace change was what sent him down to defeat.
Further notes:
This goes to the long-term trend of Republican losses in the suburbs. This is a trend that has been more than 20 years in the making and seems to be moving from the Northeast in a westerly direction. It's no longer just New Jersey and the Philly suburbs, but also the Denver suburbs, Maricopa County, Clark County, Orange County, etc. To me, the core reason we're losing them is that, as Republicans, we're not promising to fix the problems they're concerned about, including health care, education and retirement.
Now, I haven't read Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam's "Grand New Party" yet, but I understand this is what they're all about. People want an activist government, but not LBJ-style Great Society activism. They want a kinder, gentler sort of activism, one that guarantees them a piece of the good life. The government won't throw away trillions on grand social engineering projects. Instead, it makes life easier for everybody, particularly if that everybody happens to live in the middle class.
I tend to agree. But has the economic crisis changed things? To call the government's actions over the past few months "activist" is a criminal understatement. There's a reason people are starting to toss around the word "socialism" more and more. In a crisis like this, I think a succesful Republican Party needs to do more than appeal to middle-class concerns about home ownership and healthcare.
The GOP needs a BIG IDEA. The capitals should give you a sense of how big this idea needs to be. But what is it? That's what we're still searching for. And if I find it I'll be sure to let you know, dear reader. Or readers, hopefully.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The Bush Push
Florida went red in 2004. Four years later it goes blue. So which is it? Red or blue? Left or right? Democrat or Republican? Is Florida going to be the next Texas or the next New York?
We'll get a sneak preview in 2010 with the retirement of Senator Mel Martinez. I don't know if Martinez was in good shape to win re-election, but I sort of doubt it. And now that he's gone we'll have a good old-fashioned donnybrook. Side note: has the word "donnybrook" ever not been proceeded by the qualifier "good old-fashioned"?
Representin' the Republicans in said donnybrook: Jeb Bush. Well, maybe. He'd be, if not a prohibitive favorite, the definite front-runner. I can't imagine any Republican would dare challenge him in the primary. Only the most masochistic of politicians would try something so bone-headed.
If Bush runs, will the 2010 election be an early referendum on W's legacy? I can say, with authority: maybe. I'd lean against it. The name "Bush" means something completely different in Florida than it does in the other 49 states. Outside of Florida, "Bush" means "incompetence." But in the Orange state the name Bush is the seal of quality.
But who says a race has to have historical implications? A Jeb Bush run for the Senate would be good old-fashioned fun. Rest assured, it'd be the most covered senate election since Hillary ran back in '00.
We'll get a sneak preview in 2010 with the retirement of Senator Mel Martinez. I don't know if Martinez was in good shape to win re-election, but I sort of doubt it. And now that he's gone we'll have a good old-fashioned donnybrook. Side note: has the word "donnybrook" ever not been proceeded by the qualifier "good old-fashioned"?
Representin' the Republicans in said donnybrook: Jeb Bush. Well, maybe. He'd be, if not a prohibitive favorite, the definite front-runner. I can't imagine any Republican would dare challenge him in the primary. Only the most masochistic of politicians would try something so bone-headed.
If Bush runs, will the 2010 election be an early referendum on W's legacy? I can say, with authority: maybe. I'd lean against it. The name "Bush" means something completely different in Florida than it does in the other 49 states. Outside of Florida, "Bush" means "incompetence." But in the Orange state the name Bush is the seal of quality.
But who says a race has to have historical implications? A Jeb Bush run for the Senate would be good old-fashioned fun. Rest assured, it'd be the most covered senate election since Hillary ran back in '00.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Team of Rivals
I haven't been watching a lot of political shows recently. I confess to having exams on the brain. But from what I've heard, this has been their general tenor for the past few weeks:
HOST: With me here tonight is a Very Special Guest to discuss Barack Obama's prospective cabinet. Now, Very Special Guest, how would you describe this cabinet?
VSG: I'd call it a TEAM OF RIVALS, really.
HOST: Really? A TEAM OF RIVALS?
VSG: I'd say so. It appears to be a TEAM, composed mostly of RIVALS.
HOST: Wow. RIVALS...all together in a TEAM?
VSG: Yes, a regular TEAM OF RIVALS.
HOST: You'd agree that TEAM OF RIVALS is probably the best description.
VSG: It certainly fits. When you look at Obama's TEAM, you notice they're all RIVALS. Hence, a TEAM OF RIVALS.
HOST: Like Lincoln's TEAM OF RIVALS?
VSG: It's a good deal like Lincoln's TEAM OF RIVALS, though this TEAM possibly has more RIVALS.
HOST: So, once again, a TEAM OF RIVALS.
VSG: A TEAM OF RIVALS is the long and short of it.
-----
Geez. I really liked that book, but I'm getting damn sick of hearing about it. Hey, Lincoln grew a beard too. How about Obama try that and see if it works out for him?
HOST: With me here tonight is a Very Special Guest to discuss Barack Obama's prospective cabinet. Now, Very Special Guest, how would you describe this cabinet?
VSG: I'd call it a TEAM OF RIVALS, really.
HOST: Really? A TEAM OF RIVALS?
VSG: I'd say so. It appears to be a TEAM, composed mostly of RIVALS.
HOST: Wow. RIVALS...all together in a TEAM?
VSG: Yes, a regular TEAM OF RIVALS.
HOST: You'd agree that TEAM OF RIVALS is probably the best description.
VSG: It certainly fits. When you look at Obama's TEAM, you notice they're all RIVALS. Hence, a TEAM OF RIVALS.
HOST: Like Lincoln's TEAM OF RIVALS?
VSG: It's a good deal like Lincoln's TEAM OF RIVALS, though this TEAM possibly has more RIVALS.
HOST: So, once again, a TEAM OF RIVALS.
VSG: A TEAM OF RIVALS is the long and short of it.
-----
Geez. I really liked that book, but I'm getting damn sick of hearing about it. Hey, Lincoln grew a beard too. How about Obama try that and see if it works out for him?
Two-Time Loser
Poor John McCain. He's barely picked himself up off the mat before another haymaker comes flying at his bejowled head. National Review's Byron York takes a look at the possibility McCain will lose his Senate seat in 2010.
I agree with York that the biggest threat to McCain will come from his right. Conservatives spent most of 2008 bellyaching about how McCain wasn't a "true conservative." Well, here's their chance to prove it. Can they convince the Republican voters of Arizona that McCain is just a "squish," to use one of their favorite terms?
McCain will probably survive. He's no dummy; he knows the danger. And an alert politician is usually a safe one. Still, though, it'll be interesting to see if former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, one of the most pompastic (a mixing of pomp and bombastic) members of the House, will choose to run against Mr. Maverick.
I agree with York that the biggest threat to McCain will come from his right. Conservatives spent most of 2008 bellyaching about how McCain wasn't a "true conservative." Well, here's their chance to prove it. Can they convince the Republican voters of Arizona that McCain is just a "squish," to use one of their favorite terms?
McCain will probably survive. He's no dummy; he knows the danger. And an alert politician is usually a safe one. Still, though, it'll be interesting to see if former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, one of the most pompastic (a mixing of pomp and bombastic) members of the House, will choose to run against Mr. Maverick.
No Stuart Smalley Jokes, Please
OK, perhaps just one. It seems that, after all was said and done, Minnesotans did not find Al Franken good enough or smart enough. Doggone it, they just didn't like him! Good to have gotten that of my system.
Enough with the joking. This is serous business. So serious, in fact, that it looks like Franken is going to appeal his (seemingly inevitable) defeat to the powers that be: the Senate itself. And Harry Reid seems in an accommodating mood:
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called the Board of Canvassers' decision to not count the absentee ballots "a cause for great concern," fueling speculation that the Senate would explore the legality of the Minnesota recount's results.
This could be a big opportunity for the GOP. Way back in 1980s, Indiana was home to a particularly volatile congressional district nicknamed the "Bloody Eighth," for reasons which will become apparent.
The Eights was particularly bloody in 1984. After a long, long, long, grueling, and long recount, it appeared the Republican had eked out a close victory. But then the House intervened. They put together an "election review" board consisting of two Dems and one Republican. Lo and behold: the two Democrats thought the Democratic incumbent had one. The Republican not-so-politely disagreed. In the end, the Democrat was judged the winner by the landslide margin of...4 votes.
The GOP lost that battle. But the setback in the Bloody Eighth helped them win, if not the war, then the bigger battle down the road. This case of petty larceny stiffened Republicans' spine and invigorated rebellious conservatives led by Newt Gingrich. It became a cause celebre for the right and helped to fire up the conservative movement.
Could we see something like that happen again? If the Senate steps in and crowns Franken the winner, the GOP would be smart to make it a BIG THING. They could rightfully point to it as an example of the potential abuses of united government.
Of course, the GOP didn't get to where it is today by being smart. So stay tuned.
Enough with the joking. This is serous business. So serious, in fact, that it looks like Franken is going to appeal his (seemingly inevitable) defeat to the powers that be: the Senate itself. And Harry Reid seems in an accommodating mood:
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called the Board of Canvassers' decision to not count the absentee ballots "a cause for great concern," fueling speculation that the Senate would explore the legality of the Minnesota recount's results.
This could be a big opportunity for the GOP. Way back in 1980s, Indiana was home to a particularly volatile congressional district nicknamed the "Bloody Eighth," for reasons which will become apparent.
The Eights was particularly bloody in 1984. After a long, long, long, grueling, and long recount, it appeared the Republican had eked out a close victory. But then the House intervened. They put together an "election review" board consisting of two Dems and one Republican. Lo and behold: the two Democrats thought the Democratic incumbent had one. The Republican not-so-politely disagreed. In the end, the Democrat was judged the winner by the landslide margin of...4 votes.
The GOP lost that battle. But the setback in the Bloody Eighth helped them win, if not the war, then the bigger battle down the road. This case of petty larceny stiffened Republicans' spine and invigorated rebellious conservatives led by Newt Gingrich. It became a cause celebre for the right and helped to fire up the conservative movement.
Could we see something like that happen again? If the Senate steps in and crowns Franken the winner, the GOP would be smart to make it a BIG THING. They could rightfully point to it as an example of the potential abuses of united government.
Of course, the GOP didn't get to where it is today by being smart. So stay tuned.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Face "The Nation"
The euphonically-named Katrina Vanden Heuvel takes Barack Obama to task for keeping Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense. And while I disagree with Vanden Heuvel's policies, she does make a pretty fair point:
Maybe being right about the greatest foreign policy disaster in US history doesn't mean much inside the Beltway? How else to explain that not a single top member of Obama's foreign policy/national security team opposed the war--or the dubious claims leading up to it?
For someone who stressed his "judgment" over and over again during the campaign, it is a bit peculiar that Obama's stocking his cabinet with the sort of people he blasted for having the "bad" judgment. What about Change? What about Hope?
My guess is that Obama wants to prevent controversy of any kind during his first few months in office. He's already made it clear that he's going to work fast; after all, congressional leaders are saying they'll send him a multi-billion dollar stimulus bill the day of his inauguration.
To drive out Gates--and to replace him with the sort of liberal Vanden Heuvel would no doubt prefer--would just be asking for trouble. Obama does want to stay the course--for the next couple months at least. My advice to Vanden Heuvel is to wait a bit. Once Obama's gotten some of his economic solutions in the can, we'll see how he really governs.
Maybe being right about the greatest foreign policy disaster in US history doesn't mean much inside the Beltway? How else to explain that not a single top member of Obama's foreign policy/national security team opposed the war--or the dubious claims leading up to it?
For someone who stressed his "judgment" over and over again during the campaign, it is a bit peculiar that Obama's stocking his cabinet with the sort of people he blasted for having the "bad" judgment. What about Change? What about Hope?
My guess is that Obama wants to prevent controversy of any kind during his first few months in office. He's already made it clear that he's going to work fast; after all, congressional leaders are saying they'll send him a multi-billion dollar stimulus bill the day of his inauguration.
To drive out Gates--and to replace him with the sort of liberal Vanden Heuvel would no doubt prefer--would just be asking for trouble. Obama does want to stay the course--for the next couple months at least. My advice to Vanden Heuvel is to wait a bit. Once Obama's gotten some of his economic solutions in the can, we'll see how he really governs.
New York...They Want to Be a Part Of It
And let the wrangling over Hillary Clinton's now-vacant Senate seat...begin! I don't envy New York Gov. David Paterson the job. If this CQ article is to be believed, the contest is rapidly becoming a free-for-fall brawl among different constituencies.
You've got Gothamites vs. Upstates, blacks vs. Hispanics, moderates vs. liberals, and Long Islanders vs. everybody else. Someone is going to come out of this whole mess thinking Paterson stabbed them in the back.
My bet? Andrew Cuomo seems the most likely. He's a white male, sure, which is bound to disappoint a couple big interest groups. But he's the closest thing there is to a consensus candidate. After all, the name "Cuomo" still counts for something in the Empire State's Democratic circles. Plus, as CQ notes, appointing him would take away Paterson's biggest potential rival in the 2010 Democratic primary.
Of course, there's always the lurking possibility of Senator Bill Clinton. I think--and this is just my opinion, based on absolutely nothing at all--that Bill will want to stick close to the White House and Foggy Bottom. He wouldn't want the distraction that comes with being a US Senator. And when you figure in his outsize personality, it's hard to see him consent to becoming Senator #100 of 100. Not when he can be "Ambassador to the World" in the new administration.
You've got Gothamites vs. Upstates, blacks vs. Hispanics, moderates vs. liberals, and Long Islanders vs. everybody else. Someone is going to come out of this whole mess thinking Paterson stabbed them in the back.
My bet? Andrew Cuomo seems the most likely. He's a white male, sure, which is bound to disappoint a couple big interest groups. But he's the closest thing there is to a consensus candidate. After all, the name "Cuomo" still counts for something in the Empire State's Democratic circles. Plus, as CQ notes, appointing him would take away Paterson's biggest potential rival in the 2010 Democratic primary.
Of course, there's always the lurking possibility of Senator Bill Clinton. I think--and this is just my opinion, based on absolutely nothing at all--that Bill will want to stick close to the White House and Foggy Bottom. He wouldn't want the distraction that comes with being a US Senator. And when you figure in his outsize personality, it's hard to see him consent to becoming Senator #100 of 100. Not when he can be "Ambassador to the World" in the new administration.
Girly Man
No getting around it: California's in trouble. Joel Kotkin takes a look at the forces that have brought the Golden State to its knees. As you might guess, runaway spending and out-of-control interest groups are among them. And here's a factoid that would give David Brooks and Thomas Friedman nightmares:
The educational system, closely aligned with the Democrats in the legislature, accelerated its secular decline. Once full of highly skilled workers, California has become increasingly less so. For example, California ranks second in the percentage of its 65-year-olds holding an associate degree or higher and fifth in those with a bachelor’s degree. But when you look at the 25-to-34 age group, those rankings fade to 30th and 24th.
To quote both Brooks and Friedman: "Competitiveness! Competitiveness! Competitiveness!" California used to have one of--if not the--world's finest university system. That provided the fuel for the state's explosive growth. When you can draw the best minds with your schools, and keep them with your weather and job opportunities, you've got a recipe for success.
Not anymore. I'd say "recipe for disaster," but "disaster" isn't quite strong enough. Catastrophe? Armageddon, maybe? Here's a story from Bloomberg about just how dire things have gotten:
Lawmakers were unable to agree on a plan to close the gap during a three-week special session that expired yesterday. Schwarzenegger has warned that the state will run out of cash in February and can’t borrow money from Wall Street to pay bills such as payroll until lawmakers trim the deficit. The state’s finances are reeling from declines in stock markets that have sapped tax revenue from income and capital gains.
The state's solution? Raise taxes! Jack 'em up! Send 'em through the roof!
To fix the problem, Schwarzenegger has proposed increasing the sales tax to 8.75 percent from 7.25 percent for three years, as well as raising motor-vehicle fees. His proposal also would expand sales and use taxes to include appliance, furniture and vehicle repairs; golf greens fees; amusement-park admissions; sporting-event tickets; and veterinarian services.
But Schwarzenegger wants a stimulus package, too. So, basically, he's going to deal with this crisis by...taking money out of people's pockets with a tax increase, and then throwing it back in their faces with a stimulus package? I'm no economic expert, but I did take Econ 101. And that alone is enough for me to see this is an awfully awful idea.
The educational system, closely aligned with the Democrats in the legislature, accelerated its secular decline. Once full of highly skilled workers, California has become increasingly less so. For example, California ranks second in the percentage of its 65-year-olds holding an associate degree or higher and fifth in those with a bachelor’s degree. But when you look at the 25-to-34 age group, those rankings fade to 30th and 24th.
To quote both Brooks and Friedman: "Competitiveness! Competitiveness! Competitiveness!" California used to have one of--if not the--world's finest university system. That provided the fuel for the state's explosive growth. When you can draw the best minds with your schools, and keep them with your weather and job opportunities, you've got a recipe for success.
Not anymore. I'd say "recipe for disaster," but "disaster" isn't quite strong enough. Catastrophe? Armageddon, maybe? Here's a story from Bloomberg about just how dire things have gotten:
Lawmakers were unable to agree on a plan to close the gap during a three-week special session that expired yesterday. Schwarzenegger has warned that the state will run out of cash in February and can’t borrow money from Wall Street to pay bills such as payroll until lawmakers trim the deficit. The state’s finances are reeling from declines in stock markets that have sapped tax revenue from income and capital gains.
The state's solution? Raise taxes! Jack 'em up! Send 'em through the roof!
To fix the problem, Schwarzenegger has proposed increasing the sales tax to 8.75 percent from 7.25 percent for three years, as well as raising motor-vehicle fees. His proposal also would expand sales and use taxes to include appliance, furniture and vehicle repairs; golf greens fees; amusement-park admissions; sporting-event tickets; and veterinarian services.
But Schwarzenegger wants a stimulus package, too. So, basically, he's going to deal with this crisis by...taking money out of people's pockets with a tax increase, and then throwing it back in their faces with a stimulus package? I'm no economic expert, but I did take Econ 101. And that alone is enough for me to see this is an awfully awful idea.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)