Summary: Alan Grayson is receiving national attention for a confrontational speech - will it help him or hurt him in the midterm elections?
By now, many Americans have seen this clip of Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) telling the House floor that Republicans want sick individuals to “die quickly.”
He also referred to the healthcare crisis as “a holocaust” which he later apologized for.
Since the “die quickly” speech, he has become something of a thorn in the side of the Democratic leadership. House Republicans last week called on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to “rein in” the freshman Democrat from Florida.
Meanwhile, the NRCC - which already considered Grayson’s seat a top-targeted one - have ramped up their efforts to reclaim the moderately conservative district.
Even without the “die quickly” speech, it would be a competitive race. The Cook PVI for Florida’s 8th Congressional District is R+2, and Grayson’s first ever victory last year took place in a cycle that was favorable for Democrats. In fact, Grayson’s 52% win appears to be on the coattails of President Obama’s 52% in that district. Obviously, the President is not up for re-election next year, and midterm elections tend to be dangerous for the party in the White House.
Yet there has been some positive news for Grayson lately. Following that speech, his campaign raised $150,000 online from liberal donors in just 24 hours. While it would not be surprising if his opponent raised more, he currently has no opponent to worry about.
Beyond that, the Democrats are fairly well organized in Florida. In an online poll taken by the Orlando Sentinel, the majority of respondents side with Grayson.
Now, as many campaign workers know, those polls are not only unscientific, but completely distorted by the campaigns and parties. These organizations will get every activist they know to vote as many times as possible. So what a poll like this does demonstrate is how organized one side is over the other - and clearly the Democrats have the edge in this northern Florida district. (In fact, the way I found this poll was through an internet forum for Orlando-area conservatives, telling their fellow activists to vote in the poll and bring Grayson’s numbers down.)
And the lack of an opponent is beginning to trouble the GOP. Local Republican leaders in Florida guaranteed that they would defeat Grayson in 2010 - immediately following his 2008 election - and they say it’s time to get the ball rolling.
So far, one prospective opponent - Orange County Mayor Rich Crotty - has said he will not run. Former State Senator Daniel Webster is “considering” along with State Rep. Steve Precourt and State Senator Andy Gardiner.
The only candidate who has announced is retired pilot Dan Fanelli, a tea party activist. When asked about Fanelli, Orange County GOP Chairman Lew Oliver said “who?” and added that the activist “may be unrealistic about his chances.”
However, Webster has said he will make his decision by the end of the week. When asked about Grayson, Webster told the Orlando Sentinel that when he was in the State Legislature he made sure “not to burn any bridges or make it personal. Congressman Grayson would have done well to heed that advice.”
If he does have an experienced and respected challenger like Webster, Grayson will certainly face a tough re-election. Sure, those speeches might have brought in some money, but money isn’t everything - even in politics. The Democratic Party is probably as organized and popular as they’ve ever been in that district, but they’ll also be focused on other races next year, such as the open Senate seat.
The fact is that he’s created a good deal of embarrassment for himself, to the extent that every news-savvy American has heard about it. Even with over a year before the midterm election, that’s not something they’ll forget easily.
It's still too early to say if he'll win his re-election or not, but I think it's safe to say the "die quickly" speech has done Grayson more harm than good.
On Friday I mentioned that today was WAYLA's first anniversary. However, after checking our first post, I realized it's actually not until Saturday! We'll celebrate the special occasion on Friday.
So sorry if you were expecting to see a sample of everyone's favorite posts from the past year today. The good news is that you now have an extra four days to send me your favorites!
So take another look through our posts, and send the ones you like best to Dave@HogensenStrategies.com.
Monday will mark the first anniversary of "What Are You Looking At?" and we want you to help us celebrate!
Look through our blog's archives and find some of your favorite posts from the past year. Send us the links at Dave@HogensenStrategies.com and we'll put them up in a special post on Monday!
Thanks for reading, we look forward to hearing from you!
Summary: Dave at WAYLA explains why he thinks Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) will be the man to face President Obama in 2012.
If you ask the average American if they think Tim Pawlenty will run for president in 2012, chances are they’ll ask you “who’s Tim Pawlenty?” So my guess is most Americans wouldn’t think he could be the Republican nominee in three years. How’s he going to win if no one’s ever heard of him?
Ask any political junkie or insider, however, if they think Pawlenty plans on running and they’ll probably answer “uh, he already is.”
That’s why I was surprised when only a handful of the people surveyed for our “Who Are You Looking at for 2012” poll - which was composed of mostly political junkies and insiders - said they expect Pawlenty to win the GOP nomination.
So why do I think he’ll pull off the nomination?
Simply put, he’s doing everything right. From his 2010 efforts and the team he’s assembling to the media presence he’s been getting and the speeches he’s been able to deliver, Pawlenty is on-track for the 2012 GOP nomination with a winning strategy.
Focusing on 2010
He recently launched his new political action committee - Freedom First PAC - which will give money to Republican candidates for 2010, and he was all too happy to take up the Vice Chairmanship of the Republican Governors Association when Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) moved up to replace Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) following the revelations of his extramarital affair.
He says he focused on getting a few wins with those two ventures in 2010 since he’s not running for re-election in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Is it a selfless act of dedication to his party? Not when you consider the donor lists and activist networks he’s going to get out of it for a 2012 run.
The Team He’s Assembling
Pawlenty is also quietly piecing together a team of strategists that will do wonders for him in the Republican primaries.
[Pawlenty] will announce Thursday the support of a group of high-level political strategists and donors, complemented by a handful of top new media consultants, POLITICO has learned.
Pawlenty, under the radar of D.C.’s political community, has locked up some of the key operatives who engineered then-President George W. Bush reelection campaign — a significant feat for a little-known Midwestern politician.
…Pawlenty, who previously has had little political infrastructure, is now being advised by a trio of GOP consultants with presidential experience: Terry Nelson, Sara Taylor and Phil Musser.
And in formally opening his political action committee, Freedom First, Thursday, Pawlenty will also announce two co-chairmen, William Strong, a Morgan Stanley vice chairman, and former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), both of whom are heavyweight GOP figures, along with a list of prominent Minnesota donors.
In addition to a high-dollar gala launch for the PAC in Minneapolis in November, Pawlenty is planning a Washington fundraiser for late October designed to acquaint the governor with the Beltway’s most influential Republicans. Helping to coordinate the governor’s GOP outreach in the nation’s capital is Sam Geduldig, a well-connected lobbyist and former senior aide to Reps.
Serving as the PAC’s counsel is Michael Toner, a veteran campaign lawyer in Washington. Alex Conant, a native Minnesotan and former Republican National Committee spokesman, will serve as communications director.
The governor has also inked political technology consultants Patrick Ruffini, Mindy Finn, Patrick Hynes and Liz Mair to develop what Pawlenty advisers hope will be the most sophisticated new-media presence of any Republican in the nation.
Sure, the average American might not know who Tim Pawlenty is yet, but that’s exactly why he’s putting a team like this together to raise money and create a greater national presence. He’s making sure that Republicans all across America know who he is come the Iowa Caucus in 2012.
And they’re not kidding about that New Media presence strategy. Just take a look at the slick new Freedom First PAC’s website (the domain of which is - “coincidently” - TimPawlenty.com) and you’ll see all sorts of New Media tools available for supporters. It even identifies him as “TPaw”, the shorthand name given to him by the blogosphere! They also ask supporters to “RT #tpaw” on Twitter.
But it doesn’t stop there. He’s also - evidently - calling Mitt Romney operatives who are mid-level on the former candidate’s hierarchy, seeing if they’ll come over to his side should the two face up in 2012 (which they probably will) and Romney hangs on to his top-level workers.
Bulking Up the Media Presence
TPaw knows that being well known in the political community is not enough. That’s why he’s getting more stories about him in the blogosphere (and, yes, he’s doing it rather successfully) and appearing more often on cable news.
Just search “Pawlenty” on YouTube and you’ll find a good number of videos of him on cable news - especially Fox News, the network of the conservative base he needs to appeal to - such as this one:
Speaking Across the Country
A well-known tactic for building a national base of support going into an election year is doing the “speaking tour” - speaking at as many conservative or Republican events as possible (if you’re seeking the GOP nomination, of course) to build up a network of smaller donors and volunteers.
Before the recent Family Research Council’s Value Voters Summit, for example, he held a conference call with a team of advisers, including pollster Tony Fabrizio and longtime conservative strategist Greg Mueller, to help shape his speech and general approach at an event where he got rave reviews and finished a surprising third in the straw poll.
So far, Pawlenty appears to be outdoing the other Republicans on the tour, making something along the lines of 50 to 100 speeches throughout the country this year.
Sarah Palin, the darling of the GOP base - conversely - is having trouble getting booked for such speeches according to a recent article in the New York Post. Romney - the other prominent Republican name being thrown out there for 2012 - has actually been a victim of how TPaw “has used public appearances and op-eds to criticize the health care plan Romney put in place in Massachusetts.”
Speaking of his Opponents…
Pawlenty’s primary opponents will have their own difficulties. Romney’s record in Massachusetts will continue to hurt his image with the conservative base - especially on the issue of healthcare. Palin, while still popular among the Republican hard-liners, is nonetheless becoming viewed as “unelectable” within her own party.
Others are facing their own problems. Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) for example seems to have lost a bit of popularity at home this year because of his presidential ambitions, something we said was sure to hurt him if he ran nationally. As a relatively moderate politician (and yes, he’s simply playing to the base right now) Pawlenty is still fairly popular in Minnesota (albeit, Minnesotans apparently aren’t crazy about his national ambitions either).
Other possible candidates mentioned in our June survey included former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), former HHS Sec. Tommy Thompson (R-WI), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and even Gen. David Patraeus. But none of these potential candidates have shown much indication that they’re running.
Now, of course, I may be wrong. Politics is a difficult spectator sport because you simply never know what’s coming next. But barring anything unexpected (like Pawlenty having an affair or killing someone) at this point I just can’t imagine anyone else securing that nomination.
Politico reports that there is an emerging belief among many established Republicans that TPaw is becoming the only viable option left for the GOP’s 2012 White House prospects. Not only do I agree with that sentiment (if I take the Republican perspective) but I think he’s becoming the candidate with the best chance of winning the Republican primaries and taking on President Obama in the first place.
Summary: Nothing like a little competition to make things interesting - Obama joins other leaders in the race for the 2016 Olympics. Go Chicago!
It’s been months of competition and International Olympic Committee (IOC) evaluations since we last posted about Chicago’s chances of hosting the 2016 Olympics.
As we found back in March, the Windy City may be at risk of losing the games to one of four competitor cities (Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, or Madrid) if they could not pull in more community support.
Since then, things began to look even less positive for Chicago’s chances. Support for the games among Chicago residents dropped to just 47% - with 45% opposing - as recently as last month.
Then, just last week, it was announced that President Barack Obama would go to Copenhagen himself to lobby the IOC on behalf of Chicago’s bid. Perhaps it’s not a direct correlation, but since then, a Zogby International poll found that support for the 2016 bid is now at 72% among Chicago residents.
Meanwhile, the main opposition group to the Chicago bid - No Games Chicago - have had trouble organizing opponents of Chicago 2016. A protest they held yesterday only produced about 250 people in opposition to hosting the games in a city of about 3 million.
Nonetheless, the president’s decision came with some political backlash. Republican leaders - including RNC Chairman Michael Steele and House Minority Leader John Boehner - have criticized the Copenhagen trip as a distraction in the midst of the healthcare debate.
And when one really thinks about it, you have to wonder if it could actually hurt Chicago’s chances - it would seem to be a little precocious.
Not exactly.
This is exactly how former British Prime Minister Tony Blair secured the London 2012 games, and how former Russian President (now Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin secured the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Like Obama is doing now, they worked the phones and traveled across the globe to meet with IOC members before the vote.
In fact, leaders of the other three countries with a city in the race are making similar efforts. Spanish King Juan Carlos and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva have already landed in Denmark to promote the Madrid and Rio de Janeiro bids, respectively. The new Japanese Prime Minister - Yukio Hatoyama - will be arriving tomorrow on Tokyo’s behalf.
President Obama won’t be there until Friday - the day of the vote - but First Lady Michelle Obama is currently there meeting with IOC officials and American diplomats who have also been honed in to win Chicago’s favor.
IOC votes can be highly unpredictable. Aside from the paramount questions of whether bidding cities' Olympic plans are technically and financially feasible, emotion, sentiment, geography, politics, self-interest and other factors also play a role.
IOC vice president Chiharu Igaya said "many" IOC members are undecided and will choose only after the cities' final presentations Friday. "The four cities are now neck-to-neck," he told the AP.
"That final presentation, yes, it's going to be crucial," said Willi Kaltschmitt, an IOC member since 1988. He said he believes that half or more of his 105 colleagues remain undecided.
Added British IOC member Craig Reedie: "This is really close. The closer it gets the more people will say, let me think about it. We all want to see the presentations. It's what people see that will count. Decided? No, I haven't actually. I'm getting close."
Meanwhile, online betting - which now covers everything from sports to electoral politics to Emmy contests - appears to be swinging towards Chicago. According to the Betting Press, the odds that the Windy City will win its bid are now 10/11, with the next closest rival - Rio - at 6/4.
With just two days until the IOC makes their decision, the contest is still up in the air. That being said, it seems that Obama’s decision to fight for the Olympics in his hometown has made Chicago’s 2016 prospects all the more possible.
Summary: Harry Reid has had a rough time in the polls lately - but there are several reasons he can he still pull off a fifth term.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has made Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) a top target for the 2010 midterm elections.
Back in May, we posted this goofy ad the NRSC released attacking Reid for a fundraiser in Las Vegas:
We’ve seen this movie before. In 2004, the NRSC spent millions of dollars to defeat then-Democratic Senate Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. The Democrats have a habit of selecting senators from moderate states to lead in the chamber. It can come back to bite them because they have to balance their constituents’ beliefs with the goals of the larger Democratic Party.
With a high disapproval rating (at 54%) of Reid among Nevadans, he seems like the logical next target for the GOP. So far, two Republicans appear to be challenging him, and both are leading him in the polls.
But are there signs of life for the Majority Leader’s campaign?
Most will agree that Reid is vulnerable going into next year, but few will say it’s a done deal. Reid has more than a few things going for him in this upcoming election.
First, just take a look at Nevada. While it is largely a moderate state, the aggregate Cook PVI is still D+7, and registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans about 44% to 36%. On top of that, Reid’s approval rating has been as high as 45% over the past month - it could be worse.
Then there’s the incumbency effect. The Reid campaign is already working on an outreach strategy that will “reintroduce” voters to their Democratic senator, touting his work on their behalf, including his move to block nuclear waste from being stored at Yucca Mountain.
Campaigning will be tough, but the successes Democrats have had in Nevada over the past four years will make things easier. Simply put, the Democrats have located important activists and donors who will come in handy come election time. In 2008 the Democrats had over 100,000 more volunteers than the GOP for GOTV efforts in the Silver State.
And let’s not forget the war chest. So far Reid has raised $11 million for next year, as just part of his $25 million goal. The shear amount of spending on this race is likely to be unprecedented in Nevadan politics, and Reid is certain to have the advantage.
Columnist Howard Steiner is currently writing a series of articles in which he pretends he is a Reid candidate, developing a message that would prop up a theoretical challenger to victory.
From his column:
The Republican challengers for Harry Reid's senate seat hopefully understand that they cannot count on Reid's lack of popularity in the polls to carry the election. Democrats no doubt will get out the vote and the Republican Party is still in a shambles.
And that’s exactly our point: Reid will not necessarily be a Daschle, and the GOP can’t expect him to lose without a fight.
Summary: Democrats aren’t expected to do as well in 2010 as in recent years. But could that actually help independent candidates?
Back in July, we asked “how bad will 2010 be for Democrats?” The answer we found was essentially a mixed review.
Basically, Democrats are in trouble on the state level across the country. Budget problems that came to each state with the recession have led most incumbent Democratic governors and lawmakers down a road of dangerous re-election prospects.
But on the federal level, things don’t look quite so bad. Despite their recent growth in popularity, the GOP still isn’t trusted by the majority of Americans on some of the nation’s most pressing issues. It’s been the conservative base that’s become more comfortable with their own party again, not swing voters.
In other words, a strict two-party system would probably lead to a successful year for Democrats on Capitol Hill, but probably not a successful 2010 in state governments.
Of course, the United States only has a loose two-party system in which independents and third party candidates are completely free to run for office.
So could that make a difference?
According to an article on Politico today, it could. Independent candidates are set to run serious campaigns for governor in at least six states that typically swing Democratic between 2009 and 2010.
In New Jersey, where Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine is seeking a second term in November, polls suggest an independent candidate is carving a sizable portion of voters out of his hide…voters will go to the polls to choose among Corzine, Republican Chris Christie, andindependent Chris Daggett, a moderate former Republican who once worked as deputy chief of staff to Gov. Tom Kean.
According to a Public Policy Polling survey released last week, Daggett is trailing in third place with 13 percent of the vote — well behind the two major party nominees but a significant portion for a non-major party candidate.
More important, the survey found that Daggett is capturing 15 percent of the Democratic vote, compared with just 7 percent of the GOP vote, in a race where the embattled Corzine can’t afford to lose much Democratic support.
“It’s Democrats who are disgusted with Corzine but who can’t quite bring themselves to vote for Christie,” noted Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling.
Daggett attributes his showing at least in part to frustration with both the Democratic and Republican parties.
“The level of distrust of both parties is very high,” Daggett told POLITICO. “You’ve got an opportunity for an independent candidate to run a different kind of campaign.”
The volatile political environment, some strategists say, is fertile ground for nontraditional candidacies.
“My guess is when there is a pox on all of your houses, people in some states are more willing to vote for an independent,” said one top Democratic strategist who is a veteran of governors’ races. “It’s a piss-poor environment, and a number of people are looking for someone new.”
Other states with strong independent campaigns already shaping up include Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Other states that could see credible third-party or independent candidates still to come include Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Maine.
My guess is that we won’t actually see any independent candidates win. Simply put, independents don’t have the party infrastructure and network of base donors and activists that the two major parties do. Like it or not, it is a major factor to consider.
However, independents do have reasonable organization in some states - Minnesota comes most to mind - and independent candidacies do appear to be the best option for a new slew of swing voters who are disappointed in the heavily-burdened Democratic Party, but are still reminded of the Bush years too much to put their faith in the Republican Party yet.
Summary: the political landscape has changed a lot over the past year - what we can learn from it.
In the weeks and months leading up to and after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, it seemed like public opinion had dramatically shifted. Presidential job approval was the highest it had been in years, GOP favorability ratings were at - literally - an all time low, and for a while there, almost as many Americans were saying the country was on the “right track” as those who were saying it was on the “wrong track.”
As many noted, it was a “honeymoon period” for the new president.
Now with October around the corner, the tide seems to have turned. Presidential job approval is down about 20 points, the GOP has greatly improved their image, and Americans are beginning to say the country is on the wrong track again.
Call it the American Political Equilibrium.
Presidential Job Approval
Following his inauguration, President Obama had a near 70% job approval rating. Today, Gallup tracks it around 50%.
But don’t assume that it will keep dropping too fast. As Gallup noted in a recent study, Obama’s approval has stayed remarkably stable over the past month.
And RealClearPolitics.com’s presidential approval poll average appears to confirm this new trend.
In fact, this trend seems to be pretty normal for a president’s first year in office for the month of September these days. In the graph below, the only two presidents outside of the trend are the Bush presidents. It’s important to remember, however, that George H.W. Bush was the only president who did not have a recession on his hands at the time, and George W. Bush was assisted here by polls that found his approval rating to be as high as 90% following the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Now anything could happen between now and 2012, but usually the presidential approval rating for an incumbent improves going into an election year.
The Improving GOP Image
Gallup also recently found that public opinion towards the Republican Party has increased considerably since the beginning of the year when it was at an all time low.
Again, don’t assume this trend will continue. Favorability of Republicans will not reach that of Democrats for some time still.
The first reason is pretty simple: this is about the normal equilibrium favorability for the GOP in recent years. In fact, Republican favorability is only back to where it was around the time of last year’s general elections.
The other reason is because of why they’ve surged in popularity recently: it’s because Republicans themselves aren’t as dismayed by their own party as they were in the beginning of the year. Democrats and - more importantly - independents haven’t really jumped on board with them yet.
Democrats actually still lead Republicans among party base as well as independents.
Direction of the Country
For a few months, it actually seemed as though Americans were beginning to think the country was on the right path - so much so that it seemed as though we were returning to some blissful equilibrium.
Hardly.
The truth is, public opinion on the direction of the country is always pessimistic, or at least has been for the past several years.
But now, the polls seem to suggest that Americans are beginning to become less and less hopeful for their nation’s prospects again. Sure it’s sad, but it’s also normalcy.
Summary: What the GOP lacks in Twitter message discipline, they make up for in followers.
The traditional stereotype of the GOP in Congress is a group of old conservative white men who probably aren’t too savvy with the modern world.
Except the Congressional Research Service recently released a study which finds Republicans in Congress are almost twice as likely to use Twitter, and they tweet almost four times as often.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had the most subscribers to his tweets, but two Democrats — Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Claire McCaskill of Missouri — did make it into the top five list maintained by the website TweetCongress, which describes itself as “a grass-roots effort to get our men and women in Congress to open up and have a real conversation with us.” It lists Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in the top five, as well, and puts the current total of congressional Twitterers to 190. The CRS report, meanwhile, found that 4,186 people subscribed to — or followed — the median Republican senator, versus 2,874 for the median Democratic senator. The median Republican congressman had 1,615 followers, compared with 969 for Democratic colleagues.
Still, TechPresident.com’s Micah Sifry tells Politico “few members of Congress are really using Twitter very effectively. Most aren’t engaging a community all that well and, instead, use the tool primarily to broadcast a PR-style message that isn’t likely to get spread around much by others.”
David All, a Republican Internet strategist hired recently to help bolster [Rep. Joe] Wilson’s presence online — including on Twitter — said the site “is not the end-all, be-all, but it has proven to be a good tool to help public officials, trade associations, major brands and media achieve their online goals.”
He asserted that “every effective communications professional or major association needs a real strategy for utilizing Twitter at all times — especially during key events where real-time response is crucial.”
But that still isn’t stopping Republicans from posting stupid tweets, which is something we’ve covered a lot here before. The article relays some new ones:
A handful of House members were called out for tweeting during President Barack Obama’s February address to a joint session of Congress, including Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), whose account tweeted, “Aggie basketball game is about to start on espn2 for those of you that aren’t going to bother watching pelosi smirk for the next hour.” That was followed quickly by another message reading: “Disregard that last tweet from a staffer.”
In July, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a member of the Navy Reserve, was criticized for disclosing his location while on duty, which risked running afoul of military rules.
Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) raised eyebrows when he used his very active Twitter account to compare the Iranian protests over their disputed election to House Republicans’ efforts to “expose repression” such as a House Democratic “clampdown” on Republican amendments.
It’s been interesting to watch the growth of Twitter in the past year in the political world, especially among Republicans, because it brings a lot of implications with it. Unfortunately for the naïve GOP consultant quoted earlier, few of those implications are positive unless you have the sort of message discipline that Republicans clearly don’t have right now.
Summary: Who is behind the disruptive Town Hall Protests and what should Health Care Reform proponents watch out for?
I happened to pick up a copy of the latest edition of Rolling Stone this morning, and read a very in-depth political article by Tim Dickinson.
The article, entitled “The Lie Machine” expands on the inside story of August’s town hall protests that we started following over a month and a half ago.
Now, bear in mind that Rolling Stone is notoriously liberal, and the language they use may be more forceful than most media outlets would make it. However, I thought it would be good to relay you some parts of the article today.
From the section “Writing the Script”:
The campaign to mobilize the town-hall mobs began with a script written by the right’s foremost fear-monger, Frank Luntz. Luntz rose to fame in 1994 as pollster for Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, and crafted the Republican playbook on global warming. In a May memo, Luntz outlined a battle plan for conservatives to block what he branded the “Washington takeover” of health care - the most terrifying buzz words conjured up in his polls and focus groups.
The logic of the language is simple, Luntz writes: “Takeovers are like coups - they both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom.” For a third of Americans, he adds, the top worry about health care reform is “being denied a procedure or medication because a Washington bureaucrat says no.” Luntz concludes by telling Republicans how best to play the fear card. “It is essential that ‘deny’ and ‘denial’ enter the conservative lexicon immediately,” he writes, “because it is at the core of what scares Americans most about a government takeover of health care.”
Distributed widely to Republicans on Capitol Hill, the memo framed the right-wing attack on health care reform. What Luntz describes as “the best anti-Democrat message” is now familiar to everyone in America: “No Washington bureaucrat should stand between your family and your doctor…The Democrats want to put Washington politicians in charge of YOUR health care.”
Here is part of the next section, “Assembling the Team”:
Americans for Prosperity, which has taken the lead in the current fight against reform, is a front group for oil billionaires David and Charles Koch, co-owners of the world’s largest private oil and gas conglomerate. The Kochs, who provide much of AFP’s budget, have a strange affinity for mock uprisings: Matt Schlapp, one of the original “Brooks Brothers rioters” - the GOP activists who disrupted the Bush-Gore recount in Miami-Dade County - now serves as director of federal affairs for Koch Industries, orchestrating the firm’s political efforts in Washington.
To head Americans for Prosperity, the brothers tapped Tim Phillips, one of the Republican Party’s most notorious dirty tricksters. Phillips served as a strategic consultant to George W. Bush in 2000 and reputedly took part in the smear campaign in South Carolina that portrayed John McCain’s adopted daughter as his mulatto love child. That same year, Phillips was linked to a nearly identical smear campaign in Virginia that portrayed the primary opponent of Rep. Eric Cantor - a Jew - as the “only Christian in the contest.” Under Phillips, AFP became a driving force behind the Tea Party protests against Obama’s economic stimulus plan, and the group organized the Austin mob that attacked Rep. [Lloyd] Doggett. Boosted by the mobilizing effort, AFP now boasts 700,000 members and chapters in 24 states.
Dickinson continues the article - loaded with evidence from memos he has been able to collect - explaining how the team then executed the plan to mobilize the protests, and how they collaborated with Republican leaders in Congress.
Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay - following his involvement in the Jack Abramoff scandal - made his debut on Dancing with the Stars last night:
And a friend of mine sent me this video recently. What's interesting about it is how well Obama and McCain seem to stay on message. It's funny because they're actually doing everything right.
Summary: Will gay marriage make a comeback? What the right said and what it means for the continuing debate.
The Washington Independentpicked up a story from the Values Voters Summit yesterday which may reignite the debate over same-sex marriage nationwide.
Sen. Tom Colburn’s (R-OK) chief-of-staff, Michael Schwartz, made some incredibly conservative comments about homosexuality and pornography in an address about “new masculinity” on Sunday.
From the article:
“Pornography is a blight,” Schwartz told an audience in a crowded room of the Omni Shoreham hotel. “It is a disaster. It is one of those silent diseases in our society that we haven’t been able to overcome very well. Now, I may be getting politically incorrect here. And it’s been a few years, but not that many, since I was closely associated with pre-adolescent boys, boys around 10 years of age. But it is my observation that boys of that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that’s because they don’t want to be that way. They don’t want to fall into it.”
Schwartz told the crowd about Jim Johnson, a friend of his who turned an old hotel into a hospice for gay men dying of AIDS. “One of the things he said to me,” said Schwartz, “that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark… he said ‘All pornography is homosexual pornography, because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards.”
There were murmurs and gasps from the crowd. “Now, think about that,” said Schwartz. “And if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants! You know, that’s a good comment, it’s a good point, and it’s a good thing to teach young people.”
And of course, the remarks have begun to go viral with this YouTube clip of the speech:
While nothing was said about gay marriage in particular, it’s sure to be a speech that will rile up the pro-gay left more than the religious right. Nate Silver’s post last night about the passion of gay marriage opposition explains that it’s now the liberals who feel more comfortable about sticking up for their beliefs on this topic.
It makes sense too. Back in April, we commented on what Miss California said about gay marriage during the Miss America pageant:
"By the middle of the next decade, we might very well talk about legalizing gay marriage nationally - and it may even be possible…support for gay rights is increasing at a faster pace than support for race-and/or-gender-based civil rights did…
…The GOP may be slow to recognize this growing support. Recently, the Miss USA pageant found itself in the middle of the gay marriage issue…
…Gay marriage is no longer an issue that conservatives should feel comfortable discussing on their terms - even religious terms. Far too many Americans have a deep support for LGBT rights these days, including marriage. Miss California's answer was too polarizing - not the question."
The gay marriage debate has cooled down recently since it flared up earlier this year when Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine all legalized gay marriage. Will these comments make it a heated issue yet again? Time will tell.
Is that why former President George W. Bush refused to talk about it in the end? The Huffington Post reports on more Bush Administration dirt from the new book by Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer.
Summary: A new campaign strategy? Using television to connect politicians to their voters.
There’s a fascinating article on Politco’s new page, Click, discussing what television programs members of Congress watch.
For example, members interviewed reported enjoying shows such as USA’s “Monk”, NBC’s “The Office”, and re-runs of “Seinfeld” among others.
But what was more interesting is the idea of what they should be watching. From the article:
"TV and pop culture provide a quick and easy way to stay in touch with what is happening in America and what is being discussed around the coffee maker and the water cooler," says Pete Snyder, president of New Media Strategies. "When your job is decided every two years by the whims of the electorate, you had better damn well know what they’re all about."
In addition, explaining the often-arcane nuances of policy and legislation to constituents is a key part of a Congressman's job description. Using pop culture to do so can not only help a lawmaker communicate more effectively, it can enhance their profile with the media.
How’s that? Synder gives the example of a good line for trying to explain how complex legislation gets through the committee process could: "I don’t know. It’s more of a mystery than the last episode of 'Lost.'"
"Instant quotability," Synder says. "Your media requests will soar."
Democratic strategist Michael Meehan agrees. He says it's imperative that congressmen watch shows that their constituents are watching. "It's vital for long term survival of their congressional careers for members to stay connected with their constituents," he says. "Pop culture is one of those ways."
Like everything else when developing a political message, targeting is a critical aspect of this strategy. That’s why members of Congress - or at least their staff - should check the ratings of television programs in their districts.
"There are regional and local differences in programming and advertising, so it's important to know and keep that local connection back home. That helps with both politics and policy," [former democratic strategist Jeff Eller] says. "Members would be well served to study the local ratings like they study polls."
At the same time, Snyder says all politicians should familiarize themselves with TVs "eight hundred pound gorillas," such as "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars."
"Any politician worth their salt should know the two finalists on 'Idol' by name – kind of like a pop culture 'price of milk' question on the campaign trail," Snyder says. "Nail it, and you are someone people can relate to. Blow it, and you’re hopelessly out of touch."
He also recommends a full plate of political and media satire, such as the "Daily Show," "Late Night with Conan O’Brien" and "The Colbert Report."
"You can see how everything you’re working on is playing out there and what potential ambushes to avoid," Snyder says. "If you don’t feel you have the time, make your press secretary show you clips and keep you informed."
Not only is this a great article about message strategies, it also reinforces the idea that in order to represent one’s constituents, a member of Congress (or any politician) really needs to live like their constituents. Television can serve as a great tool for appearing to be outside what some consider the isolated culture of Washington.
Summary: Keeping voters engaged and predicting election outcomes – What we learned from Twitter in the New York City Elections.
Democratic strategist Joe Trippi picked up a surprising piece of news on his blog recently: it seems that the use of Twitter and Facebook by Democratic candidates in New York City could have helped one predict the outcome of Tuesday’s primaries there.
Nancy Scola of TechPresident.com wrote in a blog post yesterday that the winners of the races for Public Advocate, Manhattan District Attorney and City Comptroller might have done as well as they did thanks to the online support they built with social networking websites.
From the post:
In the New York City Public Advocate race, city councilmember Bill DiBlasio scored something of a surprise win, 33% to 31%, over former two-term Public Advocate Mark Green. (It's only a temporary "win." Since neither candidate broke the 40% mark, under city law the race goes into a run off.) While Green's name recognition is strong in the city, given his past service to the city in the same position he was gunning for, this time around his campaign never seemed to build up steam -- which is borne out by the social media numbers at play. DiBlasio collected 3,265 followers, combining his Twitter and Facebook numbers, to Green's far fewer 445…
…The Manhattan District Attorney race had been contentious, dramatic, and up for grabs. It looked for a time like Judge Leslie Crocker Snyder might emerge victorious over Cyrus Vance, despite the fact that Vance was the heir apparent to the influential sitting DA Robert Morgenthau. But Vance fairly trounced Snyder last night, 44% to 30%. A somewhat unforeseen story, but one nonetheless foretold by their respective Facebook and Twitter tallies. Vance had 1,582 admirers and followers to Snyder's 881. Attorney Richard Aborn came in third in both votes and online allies, with 26% of the vote and 720 followers and fans.
And in the Comptroller race, Queens councilmember John Liu pulled out 38% of the vote over Brooklyn councilmember David Yassky's 31%. (A result that, again, calls for a run-off at the to take place at the end of the month.) Surprising? Perhaps. But not if you're keeping tabs on how popular Liu and Yassky were doing online. Liu's Twitter-plus-Facebook tally amounted to 1,159 followers and fans, while Yassky pulled in with somewhat fewer, at 364 admirers and followers.
Of course, Scola was also right to point out that not all of the candidates had a vote total that corresponded with their social networking support.
In the Comptroller's race, David Weprin managed to amass almost as many followers as the top two candidates in the race (1,858 to Liu and Yassky's combined 2,073). But he won a much smaller share of the vote, with just 11%. And in the Public Advocate contest, Queens councilmember Eric Goia racked up more than five times the friends and followers as the second place finisher Green -- but he managed to only place a disappointing far third.
Having a lot of followers on Twitter or supporters on Facebook does not mean your campaign will automatically be successful, and relying on such websites for Election Day is a poor strategy that no well-run campaign would take.
However, utilizing these resources as a tool for fundraising or recruiting volunteers can make a campaign very strong - and it’s very possible that Tuesday’s winners had been doing just that.
As we wrote about New Media in our 21st Century Campaigning series last month:
Keeping supporters engaged is a highly important function of any campaign. Without engaged supporters, a campaign is unable to raise money or find volunteers to knock on doors and make phone calls.
That means campaigns have to keep supporters interested and active in the daily developments of the race.
…the effectiveness of such outreach comes down to what we call the “Twitter talent.” A major part of it is passing the “‘Who Cares?’ Test” - you have to post something relevant that your followers will be interested in.
In fact, some of the NYC candidates were doing just that with their Twitter and Facebook outreach. Scola mentions how Mark Green used his Twitter feed creatively, tweeting 100 “New Ideas for a Better City” to his followers.
Unfortunately for Green, creative tweeting is just one of the necessary parts of an effective New Media strategy. A campaign also needs to continually grow their list of supporters and followers in order to raise more money and get more volunteers. To that effect, it is very beneficial for a campaign to hire a New Media Coordinator who can devote their time to building a social networking base, among other things.
Luckily for candidates like Green, they have time to do these things before the run-off election.
Summary: Today, WAYLA focuses on picking and choosing followers on Twitter, stemming from Colorado Republicans "scrubbing" their liberal followers - what it means for each party, for future campaigns, and what they're missing.
On Monday, ColoradoPols.com - a Democratic-leaning political blog in Colorado - reported that Republicans on Twitter began purging liberals from their list of followers over the weekend.
From the post:
Apparently the word went out over the weekend that "liberals" are attempting to "follow" Republicans on Twitter. This is being interpreted as a bad, nefarious thing, needing to be stopped, although "following" on Twitter is in most other circles considered desirable. In fact we're not certain under what circumstances attracting Twitter followers is undesirable, but then again we've been following Republican “tweets” ourselves. We understand why some of them would prefer to not have just anybody seeing this stuff.
We're told that the advice to begin 'purging' liberals from high-profile conservative Twitter accounts was supposed to have gone out quietly, with the goal being an under-the-radar purge.
Colorado State Senator Dave Schultheis (R-09) didn’t do it very quietly, however, tweeting “Important! Many libs and progressives attempting 2 Follow conservatives. Scrub your "followers" I blocked three more today. #tcot #redco”
This development is interesting for two reasons.
The first is how the GOP is using Twitter. They want to be able to rally supporters without the other side getting word of the language or tactics they’re using.
Unfortunately for them - as they should know - anything done or said in the political realm in this day and age can be leaked faster than water in a sieve. Just take President Obama’s comments about Kanye West the other day, or many of the embarrassing tweets Republicans have made that we have relayed here on WAYLA.
"The point is that politicians wouldn’t (in most cases) say those sorts of things to rally supporters in a speech - because that too would be picked up by the mainstream media - so they shouldn’t try to engage supporters with such rhetoric in the social networking realm either."
It seems that Colorado Republicans don’t read this blog.
The second reason it’s interesting is how liberals are acting in terms of new media - or rather, political people in general.
The simple psychology of it is that it is alright to follow the opposition on Twitter - it doesn’t compromise your own ideological principles. Similarly, many smart campaign workers will sign up for the email lists of their competition.
[In fact, there are occasionally email wars between liberal groups (like, say, MoveOn.org) and conservative groups (like, say, FreedomWorks). In these wars, one group will email its supporters saying something somewhat confrontational in order to drive support (typically in money or online petition signatures) and someone from another group will receive the email too. Then they’ll use it to send out their own email, blasting the original, and driving their own support (in money or e-petitions). Sometimes it can go back and forth for a while.]
Contrast that sneaky way of watching the competition with another new media tool - Facebook. On Facebook, in order to keep track of an opposing politician or ideological group automatically, one needs to become a supporter. A follower is one thing, but identifying yourself as a supporter is too much too handle!
Nonetheless, the media follows - and “supports” - everyone in order to keep tabs on their campaign activities. That’s how we get word when somebody like Sarah Palin coins a phrase like “death panels” with a status update.
Colorado Republicans have hardly anything to fear in liberal followers on Twitter - it’s the press that they should look out for.
Jimmy Carter speaks out about conservative protesters, saying race is very much a factor. "Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," he said. "It's deeper than that."
And there's yet another New Media leak in the Obama-Kanye story! The celebrity gossip news source TMZ has obtained an audio clip (below) of what the president said.
Summary: New media keeps gaining political relevancy! After President Obama commented on hip-hop artist Kanye West's recent interruption of Taylor Swift at the VMAs, WAYLA continues to show how new media sources can affect politics, positively and negatively, every day.
I have to admit, when I first saw the video of Hip Hop artist Kanye West interrupting teen Country star Taylor Swift at the MTV Video Music Awards (see below) I never expected it to find its way to this blog.
But today the blogosphere has been rapidly spreading the news about President Obama’s take on the incident. Apparently he was in an off-the-record discussion with a CNBC reporter when he called Kanye a “jackass” for his actions at the VMAs.
Not knowing the comments were off the record, ABC News reporter Terry Moran tweeted it with his own commentary: “Now THAT’s Presidential.”
After realizing it was off-the-record, Moran deleted the tweet. Yet the news was already out there and spread like an epidemic. ABC has since released a statement apologizing for Moran’s tweet to Politico.
Why on Earth is this important?
It’s hard to imagine that most Americans are actually going to care about Obama’s unofficial comment - after all, it’s a personal feeling that is probably already held (verbatim) by most Americans.
Here’s the take from Newsweek’s blog, “The Gaggle”:
“In a White House that is so very careful about staying on message, Obama’s Kanye commentary was perhaps the most filter-free moment we’ve seen in a while, and let's face it, the slip-up was pretty harmless. Why shouldn’t Obama be able to call out Kanye for acting like a jackass? Is there anyone who actually disagrees?”
But the story is still important - not so much because of what Obama said, but how his thoughts were leaked.
We’ve talked a lot about Twitter over the past few months. We talked about its role in the Iranian elections, how campaigns can use it effectively, and even did a case study on how it has affected this very blog.
We’ve also mentioned some of the more irresponsible and damaging tweets that have come to light in 2009. For example, how one Republican operative tweeted “JUST HEARD THAT OBAMA IS GOING TO IMPOSE A 40% TAX ON ASPIRIN BECAUSE IT’S WHITE AND IT WORKS,” around June.
But the Moran tweet raises a new interesting question about irresponsible tweets: what about journalists who cover politics? What can campaigns or public relations experts do when media professionals abuse (even accidently) new media?
I guess we’ll have to watch how White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs handles this story to find out.
The big story on Politico this morning is about a study that finds women make more effective lawmakers than men. They introduce more bills, attract more co-sponsors, and deliver more money for their districts.
A speechwriter for the second President Bush has a new book coming out about his time in the White House staff. The Huffington Post reports on what he says Bush said about Obama, Clinton, and Palin. He blasts all of them.
One unexpected result of Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) outburst during President Obama’s speech last week has been the topic of racial anxiety among Republican - almost entirely white - voters.
Today Politico reports that many Democrats have come to see the opposition to Obama’s presidency as at least somewhat race driven.
This comes not long after the Los Angeles Timesreported a growing “problem” Obama had in losing white support. Tom Schaller at FiveThirtyEight.com argued that the “problem” was being overblown for the most part, but it does seem to suggest that the divide over the 44th president’s performance is at least partially racial.
Just as they were infuriated by the Department of Homeland Security’s report that right-wing militia groups could spawn domestic terrorism, conservatives are undoubtedly becoming infuriated by the suggestion that their opposition to President Obama’s policies are due to racism. Conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh will undoubtedly say that Democrats are “playing the race card” now.
Of course, many social psychologists can easily explain what’s happening. Studies show that the image of a black man can evoke subconscious fears, anxieties, etc. in whites. Therefore, it wouldn’t be to far-fetched to assume that the unprecedented intensity of opposition coming from Tea-Baggers, birthers, and other hard-line anti-Obama conservatives is due to a little racial undercurrent.
Joe Wilson served as the perfect example. As a white Southerner (the South has by far the saddest record of race relations) he gave evidence to that theory when he made an unprecedented outburst (screaming “you lie!” of all things) during a presidential address to Congress.
But can Democrats admit it openly?
So far, it’s been liberal pundits and Democratic activists that have been ready to call their conservative counterparts out on the issue of race - politicians have known better.
On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, we relayed an article from the New York Times explaining how then President-Elect Obama had been “an omnipresent icebreaker” for racial anxiety.
But Obama took a bit of a hit in the polls earlier this summer when he said that the Cambridge, MA police had acted “stupidly” in their arrest of an African-American Harvard professor. There was a huge racial divide on that subject - blacks supporting the professor, white’s supporting the arresting officer - and Obama’s mismanaged reaction resulted in a small (even just temporary) drop in the polls.
So far, neither the Obama Administration nor the Democratic Party will speak directly to the question of race in this debate. And that’s exactly what they want to do. Affirming the speculations of race-driven opposition will only hurt Obama among moderate whites while denying the speculations would hurt his position with progressives and minorities.
So the opposition to this president is (very likely) partially driven by racial anxiety. Unfortunately we can’t really admit it.
It has been a year now since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, but Joseph Stiglitz - a Nobel-winning economist from the Clinton Administration - says that banking problems are now bigger than before.
