It’s Friday, May 22, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:
Public Policy Polling has released approval ratings for several senators, most of whom have an election coming up in 2010. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) leads the pack with 62% approval and 25% disapproval. On the bottom is Roland Burris (D-IL) with 17% approval, 62% disapproval.
As America gets ready for the upcoming health care debate, BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina is putting the finishing touches on a PR campaign against President Obama’s plan for a public plan. A detailed outline of their upcoming ads can be found here. Paul Krugman sounds off against them and encourages the administration to stay strong.
Everyone knows that former VP Dick Cheney has been in the news a lot lately, but what do Americans think about it? Actually, a new CNN poll finds that his favorability rating is on the rise: up from 29% to 37% since he left office. Granted, 55% still have an unfavorable view of him. The poll also tracks Bush’s new favorability rating.
But despite this growing support, Republican politicians are trying to distance themselves from Cheney.
Finally, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has introduced the most blogged-about piece of legislation in the 111th Congress: a resolution to get 2010 declared the “Year of the Bible”.
Our favorite take on it comes from Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): “Does that mean 2009 is not the year of the Bible? What is 2012 the year of? The Quran?”
Friday, May 22, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Obama and Cheney: Dueling Speeches Today in Washington
We have full videos of the Obama and Cheney speeches today on the torture debate.
For a transcript of the President’s speech, click here.
For a transcript of the former Vice President’s speech, click here.
For a transcript of the President’s speech, click here.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
For a transcript of the former Vice President’s speech, click here.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Looking Forward to Redistricting
After the 2010 Census, State Legislatures across the country will begin remapping the U.S. Congressional districts for the next ten years. Under typical political practice, the party in power will draw the district lines so it is the most advantageous to them.
Currently the Democrats control 27 State Legislatures, while the Republicans control just 14. Nebraska has a non-partisan State Legislature and the other 8 are split between their two houses.
In 2008, New York, Wisconsin, Delaware, and Nevada went from split control to Democratic dominated while Oklahoma and Tennessee went from split control to Republican dominated. Ohio and Alaska both went from Republican controlled to split control - although it doesn’t matter in Alaska, where only one Representative is elected for a statewide seat.
It’s certainly a better picture for Democrats than it was in 2000, when Republicans controlled 18 State Legislatures to the Democrats’ 16.
How does it look for the two parties in 2010?
If the Democrats can hold their gains and even pick up a few more states (such as Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan) there is a good outlook for them.
However, population is growing quicker in western states such as Arizona and Utah, which will probably be allocated a few more seats after the Census. This will give the GOP a few more seats, though probably a relatively small number.
All in all, it looks a lot better for Democrats.
So what can the Democrats do to take advantage of the situation?
Tom Schaller, a new blogger at FiveThirtyEight.com, points out that Democrats have been burdened by the creation of majority-minority districts.
The intent of these race-minded redistricting practices is to make Congress more racially representative of America - a admirable goal, but one that appears to set back the Democratic Party. In fact, State Legislatures have gone to great lengths to gerrymander districts to accomplish this goal.
Take the 4th Congressional District in Illinois, which follows the patterns of Hispanic residency around Chicago in order to send a Hispanic representative to Congress.
Schaller also points out a recent study that attributes growing partisan polarization to “the increasing sophistication of redistricting software”.
The Democratic State Legislatures could do themselves a big favor towards creating a super-majority in the House of Representatives if they remap district lines to create more politically-diverse districts that will still be easy to win for Democratic candidates.
UPDATE: Ed Kilgore at 538 has a good post that expands on this topic.
Currently the Democrats control 27 State Legislatures, while the Republicans control just 14. Nebraska has a non-partisan State Legislature and the other 8 are split between their two houses.
In 2008, New York, Wisconsin, Delaware, and Nevada went from split control to Democratic dominated while Oklahoma and Tennessee went from split control to Republican dominated. Ohio and Alaska both went from Republican controlled to split control - although it doesn’t matter in Alaska, where only one Representative is elected for a statewide seat.
It’s certainly a better picture for Democrats than it was in 2000, when Republicans controlled 18 State Legislatures to the Democrats’ 16.
How does it look for the two parties in 2010?
If the Democrats can hold their gains and even pick up a few more states (such as Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan) there is a good outlook for them.
However, population is growing quicker in western states such as Arizona and Utah, which will probably be allocated a few more seats after the Census. This will give the GOP a few more seats, though probably a relatively small number.
All in all, it looks a lot better for Democrats.
So what can the Democrats do to take advantage of the situation?
Tom Schaller, a new blogger at FiveThirtyEight.com, points out that Democrats have been burdened by the creation of majority-minority districts.
“…Democrats have their core supporters over-packed into too few districts. In the final chapter of my book, Whistling Past Dixie, I demonstrated that the latter was a key factor, in part because race-minded redistricting produces certain districts with overwhelming Democratic majorities, inefficiently so for Democrats.”
The intent of these race-minded redistricting practices is to make Congress more racially representative of America - a admirable goal, but one that appears to set back the Democratic Party. In fact, State Legislatures have gone to great lengths to gerrymander districts to accomplish this goal.
Take the 4th Congressional District in Illinois, which follows the patterns of Hispanic residency around Chicago in order to send a Hispanic representative to Congress.
Schaller also points out a recent study that attributes growing partisan polarization to “the increasing sophistication of redistricting software”.
“‘The trend has also been fueled by a resurgence in straight-ticket voting as each party's electoral coalition has grown more ideologically homogeneous since the 1960s.’ (Translation: Republicans cleared out many moderate House Democrats from the South and Plains states while Democrats this decade finally got around to returning the favor, so to speak, by clearing out House Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest.)”
The Democratic State Legislatures could do themselves a big favor towards creating a super-majority in the House of Representatives if they remap district lines to create more politically-diverse districts that will still be easy to win for Democratic candidates.
UPDATE: Ed Kilgore at 538 has a good post that expands on this topic.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Can Michael Steele’s "New GOP" Really Succeed?
RNC Chairman Michael Steele addressed his committee today, in the wake of a vote to rebrand the Democrats as the “Socialist Democrat Party”.
The speech fell along the lines of an ideas piece he submitted for Politico today - creating a New GOP. He said there would be three important ways for the Republicans to turn the corner.
1) The GOP must be forward-looking
From his speech:
Simple enough, but as his speech demonstrates later on, a lot of the new ideas sound like more of the same.
2) The GOP must not shy away from opposing Obama policies
Steele has done his homework. Recent polls show that Americans are very concerned about the size of the deficit this year, and that concern can easily play into the hands of the “tax-and-spend liberal” message of the GOP with some clever maneuvering.
He went on to say that they should not wage personal attacks on Obama. From his piece in Politico:
Not only is it admirable strategy, but should be an effective one. The reason is simple: Americans will see it as an admirable strategy.
But it may be easier said than done. The far-right (that is essentially the remains) of the Republican Party hate Obama and do not fear demeaning him in “classless” ways. Take some of the demonstrators from the Tea Party protests for example.
But let’s assume that Steele has more influence as RNC Chair than he actually does, and the GOP only uses constructive arguments against Obama’s policies. The GOP will still be short of improvement. The simple reason is that while messaging may be improving within Republican ranks, and economic ideas are brewing, they are still the “Party of No” on issues like health care, the environment, and labor reform.
In his speech, Steele could only address these issues as such:
No real solutions found there.
Yet in his tirade against Obama, Steele did bring up some things that will sound like a reasonable argument - at least in a way that would presumably lead up to the GOP telling America about solutions of their own.
Harsh? Maybe - but if the GOP adopts these points in a standard message it could prove effective.
3) The GOP must seize on the momentum already building up nationally from the grassroots
Is there really such momentum? It’s possible - Steele seems pretty confident that it’s there.
Of course, this momentum has hardly been seen. Thousands of conservatives protested against Obama’s fiscal policies on Tax Day, but thousands of liberals protested against the Iraq War (on a pretty consistent basis) before the 2004 elections as well.
But as we mentioned last month, it may still be cause for concern if you’re a Democrat.
So will Steele’s “New GOP” succeed?
Steele is beginning to mount an effective message against the Democrats and he properly recognizes the value of conservative grassroots activists to the GOP.
But it is only the beginning of a winning strategy, and he has many kinks to work out.
For example, he complains that Obama is moving the country to the far-left. Yet, polls show that American opinion is largely shifting left. Flat(ter) tax philosophy and individual responsibility are ideas that don’t resonate with Americans as well as they used to. Americans are more concerned with health care and global warming than welfare or crime. The GOP has not been able to produce a cohesive vision on these fronts.
Take the issue of gay marriage. It’s becoming legal in more and more states and could be legalized nationally within the next ten years. Polls find that more and more Americans are supporting this non-traditional arrangement. The shift has left the GOP scrambling to redefine their opposition to it.
Recently, Steele tried to recast this issue as a business issue rather than a values issue.
This is what he said on Saturday, in the shoes of a small-business owner:
The obvious flaw in the argument is that straight couples that get married would be bad for business too, and thus bad for America - a big contradiction to Republican ideology. As columnist Matt Bandyk said of the Steele statement, “if this is actually what he meant to argue, the party's leadership is in bigger trouble than has been thought.”
The point is that America is progressing and the Republican Party is finding it difficult to adapt. Despite his pleas for Republicans to stop looking back, Steele invoked the name of Ronald Reagan a countless number of times today.
But that’s just the thing - the GOP needs a new Reagan and they know it. He not only saved them after Watergate, but reinvented conservatism to make it popular. In the aftermath of the Bush Era, they need such a messianic figure again.
Otherwise, the New GOP that Steele envisions will have a lot of trouble in the months and years ahead.
The speech fell along the lines of an ideas piece he submitted for Politico today - creating a New GOP. He said there would be three important ways for the Republicans to turn the corner.
1) The GOP must be forward-looking
From his speech:
The Republican Party is again going to emerge as the party of new ideas. It will take some time, for sure, but it is beginning now. Our governors are emerging with fresh answers to old problems. Some of our brightest stars in Congress are emerging with new approaches. New groups and new entities are being formed. Republicans are rising once again with the energy, the focus, and the determination to turn our timeless principles into new solutions for the future. The introspection is now over. The corner has been turned.
Simple enough, but as his speech demonstrates later on, a lot of the new ideas sound like more of the same.
2) The GOP must not shy away from opposing Obama policies
The guy who campaigned in favor of bottom-up style of governing is presiding over the most massive top down expansion of government bureaucracy and spending our country has ever seen or even contemplated.
Candidate Obama was very moderate in his views, but President Obama could not possibly be further to the far left. Candidate Obama talked about fiscal responsibility, about government living within its means. But President Obama is saddling our unborn grandchildren with mountains of debt. Candidate Obama boasted about cutting taxes, but President Obama will have to raise taxes to pay for his massive top-down government explosion.
Steele has done his homework. Recent polls show that Americans are very concerned about the size of the deficit this year, and that concern can easily play into the hands of the “tax-and-spend liberal” message of the GOP with some clever maneuvering.
He went on to say that they should not wage personal attacks on Obama. From his piece in Politico:
Let me make one point clear – Republicans will not make our opposition to the president personal. Republicans will challenge policies of the president that we believe are wrong, but our opposition will be done in very sharp contrast to the classless way that the Democrats and the far left spoke of President Bush.
Not only is it admirable strategy, but should be an effective one. The reason is simple: Americans will see it as an admirable strategy.
But it may be easier said than done. The far-right (that is essentially the remains) of the Republican Party hate Obama and do not fear demeaning him in “classless” ways. Take some of the demonstrators from the Tea Party protests for example.
But let’s assume that Steele has more influence as RNC Chair than he actually does, and the GOP only uses constructive arguments against Obama’s policies. The GOP will still be short of improvement. The simple reason is that while messaging may be improving within Republican ranks, and economic ideas are brewing, they are still the “Party of No” on issues like health care, the environment, and labor reform.
In his speech, Steele could only address these issues as such:
President Obama now wants to cap and tax every single American into paying higher utility rates. President Obama and his allies in Congress have now put their taxing eyes on soft drinks. President Obama and Democrat leaders want a brand new tax on our health care benefits and are devising a plan to give federal government bureaucrats control of our health care system. President Obama is backing a plan to take away the basic right of every American worker to cast a private ballot.
No real solutions found there.
Yet in his tirade against Obama, Steele did bring up some things that will sound like a reasonable argument - at least in a way that would presumably lead up to the GOP telling America about solutions of their own.
President Obama has for the first time in our history politicized the US Census process by putting political appointees in his White House in charge of it and wanting a corrupt, fraudulent organization to run it. President Obama and his far left allies are flirting with an attempt to squelch the basic freedom of speech of our nation's airwaves. President Obama's Attorney General is trying to use Mexican drug gang wars as a reason to advocate a new gun ban in America.
President Obama's Administration has disparaged our war heroes and veterans by suggesting that they are a threat to our safety, when the truth is they are the cause of our safety. The president, who thinks that every student should be able to go to college, is cutting much needed funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The president, who pledged that he would create millions of jobs through federal public works projects, now requires project labor agreements on such projects which effectively denies small and minority owned businesses access to those jobs because they are not unionized.
And the one the galls me the most: While the president sends his kids to a private school, he is at the very same time taking away opportunity scholarships from poor Hispanic and African-American kids right here in our nation's capital. Those are the facts of the president's first 100 days.
Harsh? Maybe - but if the GOP adopts these points in a standard message it could prove effective.
3) The GOP must seize on the momentum already building up nationally from the grassroots
Is there really such momentum? It’s possible - Steele seems pretty confident that it’s there.
Too bad the chattering classes inside the Beltway are too busy fretting over phony disputes and intra-party intrigue to notice that a change has indeed come to America. But it's not the one the Obama Administration wants aired on the nightly news.
Those of you who live outside of Washington know what I'm talking about. Those of you who actually attend Lincoln Day dinners, and county party events, those of you who toil in the vineyards, spending time in communities, in diners, in barber shops, and in coffee shops where real, every day people can be found. You know it is real. You can see it and feel it.
This change comes in a tea bag!
Of course, this momentum has hardly been seen. Thousands of conservatives protested against Obama’s fiscal policies on Tax Day, but thousands of liberals protested against the Iraq War (on a pretty consistent basis) before the 2004 elections as well.
But as we mentioned last month, it may still be cause for concern if you’re a Democrat.
So will Steele’s “New GOP” succeed?
Steele is beginning to mount an effective message against the Democrats and he properly recognizes the value of conservative grassroots activists to the GOP.
But it is only the beginning of a winning strategy, and he has many kinks to work out.
For example, he complains that Obama is moving the country to the far-left. Yet, polls show that American opinion is largely shifting left. Flat(ter) tax philosophy and individual responsibility are ideas that don’t resonate with Americans as well as they used to. Americans are more concerned with health care and global warming than welfare or crime. The GOP has not been able to produce a cohesive vision on these fronts.
Take the issue of gay marriage. It’s becoming legal in more and more states and could be legalized nationally within the next ten years. Polls find that more and more Americans are supporting this non-traditional arrangement. The shift has left the GOP scrambling to redefine their opposition to it.
Recently, Steele tried to recast this issue as a business issue rather than a values issue.
This is what he said on Saturday, in the shoes of a small-business owner:
Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for…So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.
The obvious flaw in the argument is that straight couples that get married would be bad for business too, and thus bad for America - a big contradiction to Republican ideology. As columnist Matt Bandyk said of the Steele statement, “if this is actually what he meant to argue, the party's leadership is in bigger trouble than has been thought.”
The point is that America is progressing and the Republican Party is finding it difficult to adapt. Despite his pleas for Republicans to stop looking back, Steele invoked the name of Ronald Reagan a countless number of times today.
But that’s just the thing - the GOP needs a new Reagan and they know it. He not only saved them after Watergate, but reinvented conservatism to make it popular. In the aftermath of the Bush Era, they need such a messianic figure again.
Otherwise, the New GOP that Steele envisions will have a lot of trouble in the months and years ahead.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Return of the Abortion Debate
In recent days, there has been a flurry of stories surrounding the issue of abortion.
Two recent polls find the United States to be moving in a “pro-life” direction and yesterday President Obama gave the commencement address to the new graduates of Notre Dame - a catholic university - which sparked criticism from the pro-life community.
The first poll - released April 30th by the Pew Research Center - found that support for abortion in most or all cases has dropped to 46% while opposition to abortion in most or all cases has gone up to 44% of Americans.
The poll found that support for abortion rights decreased significantly among Republicans - but this may be more attributable to moderates leaving the GOP than changes in their views on abortion. But support for abortion decreased even more so among independents.
In terms of religion, Evangelicals continue to be the most opposed to abortion (with only 23% of them supporting it) while a majority of mainline Protestants were in favor. Yet support for abortion decreased 15% among mainline Protestants since August last year.
A second poll - released on Friday by Gallup - found that for the first time in the history of the poll, a majority of Americans (51%) describe themselves as “pro-life” rather than “pro-choice”.
Furthermore, the Gallup poll confirms the Pew poll’s findings on the trend in terms of political ideology.
Is America really more Pro-Life?
Nate Silver and Ed Kilgore at FiveThirtyEight.com were quick to point out that the findings of these polls might be dubious.
Silver combined the two questions (“legal or illegal?” and “pro-life or pro-choice?”) into one graph and found that the general trend in such surveys is that America is simply becoming more opinionated about abortion - not necessarily more opposed to it.
Kilgore, meanwhile, argued that the Gallup poll failed to accurately account for the fact that the GOP is growing smaller and produced an outlier survey - one that is terribly misleading about the actual circumstances of the national opinion.
He also pointed out that most pro-life Americans are not hardliners - they will make exceptions in certain circumstances, such as a risk to the mother’s health.
Of course, a recent Op-Ed piece in the New York Times by Ross Douthat also points out that many pro-choice Americans are not hardliners either - in fact, two out of three Americans support restrictions on second and third trimester abortions.
Douthat also points out another interesting bit from the Pew poll - “Americans under 35, while more sympathetic to gay marriage than their parents, also tend to be slightly more anti-abortion”.
And he’s right. With the exception of senior citizens, the Millennials are the least supportive generation of abortion, as the Pew table above indicates. As Silver wrote in his post, “There are evidently an increasing number of pro-life, pro-gay marriage Americans…a position it would have been very unusual to encounter just a few years ago.”
In fact, it certainly appears that the entire abortion debate is very different than just a few years ago based on the evidence we’ve seen. The specific views vary widely from individual to individual, often for very different reasons.
But what is the impact of this in Washington?
We’ll definitely see this issue come up again as Obama finds his nominee to replace Justice Souter for the Supreme Court - but there are already palpable changes taking place in the political (rather than policy) sphere.
Yesterday on Meet the Press, DNC Chairman Tim Kaine and RNC Chairman Michael Steele faced off on the controversy surrounding Obama’s visit to Notre Dame.
No surprises there. The Democratic leader toted the party line of keeping abortions rare, safe, and legal, while the Republican leader toted the party line of the sacredness of life.
Except the interesting thing is that Kaine is pro-life, while Steele (although he describes himself as “pro-life”) said earlier this year that abortion is a woman’s personal choice.
Thus the traditional political lines are being blurred.
And that’s where Obama’s speech at Notre Dame comes in. Speaking to a full auditorium, he said
And there in lies some of the President’s greatest attributes - inclusiveness and pragmatism. Since taking office Obama has lived by a creed to make the middle ground the higher ground.
In a complex debate with a diverse range of opinions on a sensitive issue - and arguably more complex, diverse, and sensitive than ever - Obama has touched on the essential principles of a common ground by which all Americans can agree and work together.
Perhaps it is because of a deep-founded conviction, or perhaps it is simply the shifting lines on the issue, but Obama has taken yet another controversy as an opportunity and hit a political home run.
You can watch the full commencement address here.
Two recent polls find the United States to be moving in a “pro-life” direction and yesterday President Obama gave the commencement address to the new graduates of Notre Dame - a catholic university - which sparked criticism from the pro-life community.
The first poll - released April 30th by the Pew Research Center - found that support for abortion in most or all cases has dropped to 46% while opposition to abortion in most or all cases has gone up to 44% of Americans.
The poll found that support for abortion rights decreased significantly among Republicans - but this may be more attributable to moderates leaving the GOP than changes in their views on abortion. But support for abortion decreased even more so among independents.
In terms of religion, Evangelicals continue to be the most opposed to abortion (with only 23% of them supporting it) while a majority of mainline Protestants were in favor. Yet support for abortion decreased 15% among mainline Protestants since August last year.
A second poll - released on Friday by Gallup - found that for the first time in the history of the poll, a majority of Americans (51%) describe themselves as “pro-life” rather than “pro-choice”.
Furthermore, the Gallup poll confirms the Pew poll’s findings on the trend in terms of political ideology.
Is America really more Pro-Life?
Nate Silver and Ed Kilgore at FiveThirtyEight.com were quick to point out that the findings of these polls might be dubious.
Silver combined the two questions (“legal or illegal?” and “pro-life or pro-choice?”) into one graph and found that the general trend in such surveys is that America is simply becoming more opinionated about abortion - not necessarily more opposed to it.
Kilgore, meanwhile, argued that the Gallup poll failed to accurately account for the fact that the GOP is growing smaller and produced an outlier survey - one that is terribly misleading about the actual circumstances of the national opinion.
He also pointed out that most pro-life Americans are not hardliners - they will make exceptions in certain circumstances, such as a risk to the mother’s health.
In particular, GSS shows an exceptionally durable 80%-plus level of support for a "health exception," which happens to be the actual flash-point separating pro-life activists from the rest of the population. In other words, lots of "pro-life" Americans consistently, and over decades, favor an exception that pro-life activists adamantly consider a complete repudiation of the pro-life point of view.
Of course, a recent Op-Ed piece in the New York Times by Ross Douthat also points out that many pro-choice Americans are not hardliners either - in fact, two out of three Americans support restrictions on second and third trimester abortions.
Douthat also points out another interesting bit from the Pew poll - “Americans under 35, while more sympathetic to gay marriage than their parents, also tend to be slightly more anti-abortion”.
And he’s right. With the exception of senior citizens, the Millennials are the least supportive generation of abortion, as the Pew table above indicates. As Silver wrote in his post, “There are evidently an increasing number of pro-life, pro-gay marriage Americans…a position it would have been very unusual to encounter just a few years ago.”
In fact, it certainly appears that the entire abortion debate is very different than just a few years ago based on the evidence we’ve seen. The specific views vary widely from individual to individual, often for very different reasons.
But what is the impact of this in Washington?
We’ll definitely see this issue come up again as Obama finds his nominee to replace Justice Souter for the Supreme Court - but there are already palpable changes taking place in the political (rather than policy) sphere.
Yesterday on Meet the Press, DNC Chairman Tim Kaine and RNC Chairman Michael Steele faced off on the controversy surrounding Obama’s visit to Notre Dame.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
No surprises there. The Democratic leader toted the party line of keeping abortions rare, safe, and legal, while the Republican leader toted the party line of the sacredness of life.
Except the interesting thing is that Kaine is pro-life, while Steele (although he describes himself as “pro-life”) said earlier this year that abortion is a woman’s personal choice.
Thus the traditional political lines are being blurred.
And that’s where Obama’s speech at Notre Dame comes in. Speaking to a full auditorium, he said
…when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.
So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.
And there in lies some of the President’s greatest attributes - inclusiveness and pragmatism. Since taking office Obama has lived by a creed to make the middle ground the higher ground.
In a complex debate with a diverse range of opinions on a sensitive issue - and arguably more complex, diverse, and sensitive than ever - Obama has touched on the essential principles of a common ground by which all Americans can agree and work together.
Perhaps it is because of a deep-founded conviction, or perhaps it is simply the shifting lines on the issue, but Obama has taken yet another controversy as an opportunity and hit a political home run.
You can watch the full commencement address here.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Friday, May 15, 2009
Back on the Bush Years
It’s Friday, May 15, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:
After suspending them early in his term, President Obama today decided to resume military tribunals of terror detainees - although no decision has been made as to when they would proceed. Although they will include some sweeping reforms (such as banning hearsay evidence) that contrast with how they operated during the Bush Administration, liberal groups like the ACLU still are not satisfied.
Obama isn’t the only one stuck between a rock and a hard place (or “hawks and a liberal base”) - Attorney General Eric Holder received a major grilling yesterday, defending the Administration from both conservatives and liberals on the House Judiciary Committee over the detainees issue.
As we’ve said before, the smartest move - in political terms - would be to appease the base on these issues.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is facing her own controversy on the issue of detainees. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) even went so far as to call for her removal today.
Finally, the architect of the Bush years himself - Karl Rove - is being interviewed by special prosecutors who are investigating the firing of nine U.S. attorneys during Bush’s time in office.
After suspending them early in his term, President Obama today decided to resume military tribunals of terror detainees - although no decision has been made as to when they would proceed. Although they will include some sweeping reforms (such as banning hearsay evidence) that contrast with how they operated during the Bush Administration, liberal groups like the ACLU still are not satisfied.
Obama isn’t the only one stuck between a rock and a hard place (or “hawks and a liberal base”) - Attorney General Eric Holder received a major grilling yesterday, defending the Administration from both conservatives and liberals on the House Judiciary Committee over the detainees issue.
As we’ve said before, the smartest move - in political terms - would be to appease the base on these issues.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is facing her own controversy on the issue of detainees. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) even went so far as to call for her removal today.
Finally, the architect of the Bush years himself - Karl Rove - is being interviewed by special prosecutors who are investigating the firing of nine U.S. attorneys during Bush’s time in office.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
GOP Obstructionism in the Senate
Today Senate Republicans blocked their first Obama Administration nominee. David Hayes, the nominee for Interior deputy secretary, would have been easily confirmed had it not been for a failed cloture vote.
The vote for cloture was 57-39 - just three votes short.
It all began when Interior Secretary Ken Salazar put an oil-and-lease sale in Utah on hold. That sparked Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) to call for an opposition to incoming Interior Department nominees.
It seems like a strange move for all but two GOP Senators - John Kyle and Olympia Snowe - to rally behind Bennett for his local constituency in a partisan effort to filibuster a non-political civil servant such as Hayes. Especially for the Interior Department. But that’s exactly what they did.
What’s really incredible is that Bennett said that Hayes was qualified for the position and "I want to do everything I can to get Hayes confirmed as rapidly as possible."
Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he’ll wait until Al Franken is seated - if he needs to - in order to confirm Hayes. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin pledged to bring the Hayes confirmation back to a vote on Monday.
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) told reporters today "What we have today is a classic hostage-taking," while Salazar said in a press statement:
While Salazar stood by the decision to hold-up the lease, he told Bennett in a letter yesterday that he would instruct Hayes (once nominated) to go to Utah and review the situation.
Beyond this, the confirmation process of Obama nominees has been the slowest for any President in ages. The last time it was comparatively slow was in 1981, where (by this point in the year) Democrats in the Senate had confirmed 125 Reagan nominees. This year the GOP has only confirmed 104 of Obama’s.
But why are Senate Republicans doing this?
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) joined the opposition to Hayes because of her disagreements with the Obama Administration on enforcement of the Endangered Species Act.
But that only accounts for one GOP Senator, and it really isn’t a good answer.
The truth is that this could serve as a huge setback to the GOP. If this story gets the attention it deserves it would make the Republican Party seem as hyper-partisan as ever.
If we were Senate Republicans, we would use the upcoming Supreme Court nomination to replace Justice David Souter as an opportunity to save what grace the GOP has left with the voters.
The vote for cloture was 57-39 - just three votes short.
It all began when Interior Secretary Ken Salazar put an oil-and-lease sale in Utah on hold. That sparked Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) to call for an opposition to incoming Interior Department nominees.
It seems like a strange move for all but two GOP Senators - John Kyle and Olympia Snowe - to rally behind Bennett for his local constituency in a partisan effort to filibuster a non-political civil servant such as Hayes. Especially for the Interior Department. But that’s exactly what they did.
What’s really incredible is that Bennett said that Hayes was qualified for the position and "I want to do everything I can to get Hayes confirmed as rapidly as possible."
Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he’ll wait until Al Franken is seated - if he needs to - in order to confirm Hayes. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin pledged to bring the Hayes confirmation back to a vote on Monday.
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) told reporters today "What we have today is a classic hostage-taking," while Salazar said in a press statement:
"This was a tired vote of bitter obstructionism … It may be uncomfortable for some to watch us have to clean up mess after mess -- from corruption to lawbreaking -- that is the previous administration's legacy at Interior, but to cast a vote against such a qualified and fine person is the height of cynicism."
While Salazar stood by the decision to hold-up the lease, he told Bennett in a letter yesterday that he would instruct Hayes (once nominated) to go to Utah and review the situation.
Beyond this, the confirmation process of Obama nominees has been the slowest for any President in ages. The last time it was comparatively slow was in 1981, where (by this point in the year) Democrats in the Senate had confirmed 125 Reagan nominees. This year the GOP has only confirmed 104 of Obama’s.
But why are Senate Republicans doing this?
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) joined the opposition to Hayes because of her disagreements with the Obama Administration on enforcement of the Endangered Species Act.
But that only accounts for one GOP Senator, and it really isn’t a good answer.
The truth is that this could serve as a huge setback to the GOP. If this story gets the attention it deserves it would make the Republican Party seem as hyper-partisan as ever.
If we were Senate Republicans, we would use the upcoming Supreme Court nomination to replace Justice David Souter as an opportunity to save what grace the GOP has left with the voters.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Will Specter Survive While Opposing EFCA?
The Number One piece of progressive legislation that Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) has refused to support since switching parties is the Employee Free Choice Act. The bill - which would make it easier for workers to organize for collective bargaining - has been mentioned several times by Specter since he became a Democrat.
Before the party-switch, he told Republican constituents "the 41st Republican, whose name is Arlen Specter, is vital to stopping…passage of card check".
In his campaign statement following the switch, he told voters
Of course, during the 110th Congress, Specter supported EFCA as a co-sponsor and said he was "delighted" to let it get past the cloture vote. Since then he changed his stance - probably to satisfy Republican donors for his upcoming battle with former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA) - and kept his position consistent through the party-switch so as not to appear to be a flip-flopper. But this campaign pragmatism has put him in a bit of a predicament.
As we mentioned before, the most significant reason that Specter changed parties was to avoid a Republican Primary with Toomey. But without supporting EFCA, Specter will be at a serious disadvantage in a possible Democratic Primary.
State Rep. Bill Kortz (D-Dravosburg) and Joseph Torsella (a former aide to Gov. Ed Rendell) are already running against Specter in the Primary, and many expect Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) to jump in as well.
The unions may be inclined to support any of these challengers so long as Specter opposes EFCA - a major problem for him in a Democratic Primary. As some of the most efficient progressive organizing associations, labor unions are particularly important for Democrats to win the support of going into an election.
And in Pennsylvania they’re especially important. With more than 800,000 union members statewide - and the home to the very politically active United Steelworkers - the Keystone State will be a tough place for any Democrat that opposes such a key labor law while going into a Primary.
So far the unions have made the importance of this bill clear. Last month, more than 300 union members marched in Pittsburg in an effort to reverse Specter’s position.
Yet Specter claims his newfound concerns with EFCA are not entirely about an anti-labor principle. Earlier this month he said “I’m opposed to giving up the secret ballot or mandatory arbitration as they are set forth in the bill, but I do believe that labor law reform is past overdue”. So a compromise to the Card Check Clause may be enough to bring him on board.
Sen. Diane Feinstein has such a compromise.
From the National Journal:
It may not be what the unions had in mind, but many union organizers say the proposal sounds alright.
Specter, meanwhile, has suggested the Arbitration Clause could be amended to make "last best offer" arbitration (or Baseball Arbitration) into law. And Bill Samuel of the AFL-CIO says "we're open to that."
As far as passing the legislation goes, Specter may not be the only one to change positions with the compromise. It could satisfy the concerns of other moderate senators such as Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Udall (D-CO), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
Ultimately, the unions may be disappointed with the concessions, but pleased that such reform would actually pass.
Specter will have his own reasons to support such a compromise bill. His future may depend on it.
Before the party-switch, he told Republican constituents "the 41st Republican, whose name is Arlen Specter, is vital to stopping…passage of card check".
In his campaign statement following the switch, he told voters
"My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change."
Of course, during the 110th Congress, Specter supported EFCA as a co-sponsor and said he was "delighted" to let it get past the cloture vote. Since then he changed his stance - probably to satisfy Republican donors for his upcoming battle with former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA) - and kept his position consistent through the party-switch so as not to appear to be a flip-flopper. But this campaign pragmatism has put him in a bit of a predicament.As we mentioned before, the most significant reason that Specter changed parties was to avoid a Republican Primary with Toomey. But without supporting EFCA, Specter will be at a serious disadvantage in a possible Democratic Primary.
State Rep. Bill Kortz (D-Dravosburg) and Joseph Torsella (a former aide to Gov. Ed Rendell) are already running against Specter in the Primary, and many expect Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) to jump in as well.
The unions may be inclined to support any of these challengers so long as Specter opposes EFCA - a major problem for him in a Democratic Primary. As some of the most efficient progressive organizing associations, labor unions are particularly important for Democrats to win the support of going into an election.And in Pennsylvania they’re especially important. With more than 800,000 union members statewide - and the home to the very politically active United Steelworkers - the Keystone State will be a tough place for any Democrat that opposes such a key labor law while going into a Primary.
So far the unions have made the importance of this bill clear. Last month, more than 300 union members marched in Pittsburg in an effort to reverse Specter’s position.
Yet Specter claims his newfound concerns with EFCA are not entirely about an anti-labor principle. Earlier this month he said “I’m opposed to giving up the secret ballot or mandatory arbitration as they are set forth in the bill, but I do believe that labor law reform is past overdue”. So a compromise to the Card Check Clause may be enough to bring him on board.
Sen. Diane Feinstein has such a compromise.
From the National Journal:
[Diane Feinstein's] proposal would replace the card-check provision, which would allow workers to unionize if a majority signed authorization cards and strip a company's ability to demand a secret ballot election. "It's a secret ballot that would be mailed in ... just like an absentee ballot. The individual could take it home and mail it in," Feinstein said. If a majority mailed the ballots to the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB would recognize the union.
It may not be what the unions had in mind, but many union organizers say the proposal sounds alright.
Specter, meanwhile, has suggested the Arbitration Clause could be amended to make "last best offer" arbitration (or Baseball Arbitration) into law. And Bill Samuel of the AFL-CIO says "we're open to that."
As far as passing the legislation goes, Specter may not be the only one to change positions with the compromise. It could satisfy the concerns of other moderate senators such as Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Udall (D-CO), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
Ultimately, the unions may be disappointed with the concessions, but pleased that such reform would actually pass.
Specter will have his own reasons to support such a compromise bill. His future may depend on it.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Obama's First White House Correspondents' Dinner
It’s Monday, May 11, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:
President Obama made the crowd laugh Saturday night at his first White House Correspondents’ Dinner. See the full video here.
Following him was actual comedian Wanda Sykes.
President Obama made the crowd laugh Saturday night at his first White House Correspondents’ Dinner. See the full video here.
Following him was actual comedian Wanda Sykes.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The Republicans Are Recruiting RINOs - But Why?
Politico has a good article today on the NRSC’s latest candidate recruitment. The committee - which is run by conservative Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) - has been recruiting moderate Republicans to run for Senate in 2010.
It is a quiet and pragmatic move on the part of the GOP. They are looking for candidates that represent the state’s local values over party ideologues and they’re specifically targeting states in which the Democratic senators have "screwed up".
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) - the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee which oversaw the bailout - is a good example of a Senator who fell from popularity in his home state. Senator Roland Burris (D-IL), on the other hand, was never popular to begin with due to his ties to former Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-IL).
But the party is moving further to the right and many right-wing activists have already been trying to purge moderate members that are currently in office. Similarly, they are trying to ensure their party doesn’t move any further left with the new challengers.
One could see the recruitment of these "RINOs" (or Republicans-In-Name-Only) as an experiment. If some can get past the primary it will demonstrate where the GOP base is most ideological and where it is more pragmatic. If some of these moderate Republicans can win their General Elections, this may prove to be an important strategy that could dramatically shift GOP campaign operations in the years to come.
But for 2010, the best that Republicans like Cornyn can hope for is gaining more insight as to how to retake power.
The party’s top choice for Florida’s open Senate seat is popular Gov. Charlie Crist, who raised eyebrows earlier this year with his vigorous advocacy of President Barack Obama’s stimulus package — he even went so far as to appear with Obama at a Florida rally in February. In Connecticut, the national GOP has lobbied former Rep. Rob Simmons — who holds a higher lifetime rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action group than Specter does — to challenge Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd.
In Delaware, where there is widespread consensus that just one Republican — Rep. Michael Castle, the co-founder of the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership — can win Joe Biden’s former seat, the push is on to get him to announce for the Senate.
In the Midwest, there’s Illinois Rep. Mark Kirk, another leading centrist viewed as the GOP’s best hope of capturing a blue-state Senate seat — the one Obama vacated after he was elected president.
On the West Coast, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn of Texas is hoping to land self-proclaimed moderate businesswoman Carly Fiorina to run against Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in a state that gave Obama 61 percent of the vote.
It is a quiet and pragmatic move on the part of the GOP. They are looking for candidates that represent the state’s local values over party ideologues and they’re specifically targeting states in which the Democratic senators have "screwed up".
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) - the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee which oversaw the bailout - is a good example of a Senator who fell from popularity in his home state. Senator Roland Burris (D-IL), on the other hand, was never popular to begin with due to his ties to former Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-IL).
But the party is moving further to the right and many right-wing activists have already been trying to purge moderate members that are currently in office. Similarly, they are trying to ensure their party doesn’t move any further left with the new challengers.
"Sen. Cornyn has done a great job with recruitment," said Carl Forti, a Republican consultant who headed the National Republican Congressional Committee’s independent expenditure effort in 2006. "The ironic thing in the House and Senate is you need moderate candidates to win if you want to be successful. That’s why you currently see Pennsylvania Republicans looking for a moderate to take on Toomey, because of the belief that while Toomey is fine in a primary, he can’t win the general election because he’s too conservative. This will be an ongoing problem for the party"…
…Still, despite the focus on a moderate-rich recruiting class, it’s not a foregone conclusion that all of them will be on the ballot in November 2010. In Connecticut, Florida and Pennsylvania, viable conservative candidates are already running against the national party’s darlings.
In Connecticut, state Sen. Sam Caligiuri is running against Simmons and is expected to attack his moderate voting record in Congress. If Crist runs, he’ll have to defend his support of the stimulus against a more conservative opponent, former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio. And any Republican who jumps into the Pennsylvania race will have to get past Toomey, whom conservatives laud for forcing Specter out of the party.
"It’s ironic but not surprising that the Senate Republicans would see a path that would be blazed by moderates," said Republican pollster Adam Geller. "There’s a chunk of GOP voters that won’t make the political calculation and rather would stand with their principles, even if it means they lose."
One could see the recruitment of these "RINOs" (or Republicans-In-Name-Only) as an experiment. If some can get past the primary it will demonstrate where the GOP base is most ideological and where it is more pragmatic. If some of these moderate Republicans can win their General Elections, this may prove to be an important strategy that could dramatically shift GOP campaign operations in the years to come.
But for 2010, the best that Republicans like Cornyn can hope for is gaining more insight as to how to retake power.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Getting Inside the Heads of the GOP
Since the November elections we have been looking at the discord and confusion within the Republican Party. With the 2010 elections coming to the forefronts of our minds, the GOP doesn’t seem to have made much ground.
So what are they thinking?
Following his departure from the GOP last week, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) made his points about the direction of his old party.
Immediately following him was an interesting conversation between host David Gregory, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, and former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie. It was a good chance to hear the thoughts from within the Republican Party.
And an online follow-up.
Obviously there is a lot of confusion, but despite a scrambling opposition, Democrats should be worried about one particular message the GOP has discovered - "checks and balances".
It seems that some new push-poll data conducted by Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies has found it to be an effective argument for GOP campaigns. “Our latest national survey provides strong evidence that voters are concerned that they have given too much power to one political party and that Republicans can provide a check and balance,” said pollster Glen Bolger.
They may not have it all figured out, but the GOP is coming closer to a cohesive message for the 2010 elections. Democrats should make a note of it.
So what are they thinking?
Following his departure from the GOP last week, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) made his points about the direction of his old party.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Immediately following him was an interesting conversation between host David Gregory, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, and former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie. It was a good chance to hear the thoughts from within the Republican Party.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
And an online follow-up.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Obviously there is a lot of confusion, but despite a scrambling opposition, Democrats should be worried about one particular message the GOP has discovered - "checks and balances".
It seems that some new push-poll data conducted by Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies has found it to be an effective argument for GOP campaigns. “Our latest national survey provides strong evidence that voters are concerned that they have given too much power to one political party and that Republicans can provide a check and balance,” said pollster Glen Bolger.
They may not have it all figured out, but the GOP is coming closer to a cohesive message for the 2010 elections. Democrats should make a note of it.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Souter, Specter, and College Football
It’s Friday, May 01, 2009. Here's what we're looking at:
Justice David Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court will retire, according to numerous government officials (including President Obama). Who will the new president pick to replace Souter? Probably another minority or female legal expert. The New York Times provides a slew of possibilities as to who it might be.
No matter who Obama picks to replace Souter, he or she will still have to be confirmed by the Senate. The process will start in the Senate Judiciary Committee - where, because of Sen. Arlen Specter’s recent party switch, confirming a liberal Justice may be more difficult now.
Specter’s decision has been supported by most Democrats in Washington DC, but the Democratic activists in Pennsylvania are not so sure. One group is demanding that the moderate Senator go through a primary.
Finally, the BCS System vs. Playoffs issue is heating up in Congress. One of the most passionate House members on this issue is Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) who says that the BCS System is “like communism, you can't fix it."
Justice David Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court will retire, according to numerous government officials (including President Obama). Who will the new president pick to replace Souter? Probably another minority or female legal expert. The New York Times provides a slew of possibilities as to who it might be.
No matter who Obama picks to replace Souter, he or she will still have to be confirmed by the Senate. The process will start in the Senate Judiciary Committee - where, because of Sen. Arlen Specter’s recent party switch, confirming a liberal Justice may be more difficult now.
Specter’s decision has been supported by most Democrats in Washington DC, but the Democratic activists in Pennsylvania are not so sure. One group is demanding that the moderate Senator go through a primary.
Finally, the BCS System vs. Playoffs issue is heating up in Congress. One of the most passionate House members on this issue is Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) who says that the BCS System is “like communism, you can't fix it."
Thursday, April 30, 2009
How the Millennials Are Shifting the American Opinion
It is well known that Americans under 30 are far more supportive of gay marriage, protecting the environment, and other liberal concerns than older Americans. But a new ABC News - Washington Post poll finds that such support has bigger implications than ever before.
The best example: For the first time in the history of this poll (and probably in most respected surveys) a plurality of Americans support gay marriage.
With Americans under 30 supporting it by a 2-to-1 margin, 49% of all respondents said they supported gay marriage, while only 46% said they were opposed. 48% of respondents between the ages of 30 and 64 supported expanding marriage, and just 28% of respondents older than 65 agreed.
But it’s not just the marriage issue in which the Millennials are making a difference.
Americans under 30 were one of the most supportive demographics of stricter regulations on greenhouse emissions. 80% of these young adults supported such tougher environmental policies, compared to 64% of seniors. As a result, 75% of all respondents supported regulating emissions.
Meanwhile, support for the decriminalization of marijuana is at an all time high. This is something that has been known for months, but now there is evidence that the shift towards legalizing pot is due (in part) to the Millennial generation.
According to the pollsters:
Finally, opinions on illegal immigration are rapidly changing, due (again in part) to the rise of the Millennials.
But how will it affect elections or policy?
Younger voters are notoriously bad about voting. Each election cycle pundits talk about the youth vote, only to see it improve mildly (if at all). As a result, such views as seen above are not as reflective of the voting population - and that makes an enormous difference.
But last year more than 23 million Americans under 30 cast their ballot in the Presidential contest. What was truly remarkable wasn’t that there was a 4% increase in youth turnout, but that this generation was so overwhelmingly supportive of Barack Obama.
As college student and DNC member Jason Rae told us in early January:
The best example: For the first time in the history of this poll (and probably in most respected surveys) a plurality of Americans support gay marriage.
With Americans under 30 supporting it by a 2-to-1 margin, 49% of all respondents said they supported gay marriage, while only 46% said they were opposed. 48% of respondents between the ages of 30 and 64 supported expanding marriage, and just 28% of respondents older than 65 agreed.
But it’s not just the marriage issue in which the Millennials are making a difference.
Americans under 30 were one of the most supportive demographics of stricter regulations on greenhouse emissions. 80% of these young adults supported such tougher environmental policies, compared to 64% of seniors. As a result, 75% of all respondents supported regulating emissions.
Meanwhile, support for the decriminalization of marijuana is at an all time high. This is something that has been known for months, but now there is evidence that the shift towards legalizing pot is due (in part) to the Millennial generation.
According to the pollsters:
"Support for legalizing small amounts of marijuana for personal use is nearly twice as high among young adults (57 percent of those under 30) as seniors (30 percent), with middle-aged Americans split about evenly."
Finally, opinions on illegal immigration are rapidly changing, due (again in part) to the rise of the Millennials.
"In another difference by age, 85 percent of senior citizens say the U.S. isn’t doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from coming into the country; that eases to a still-substantial 65 percent of under 30s. And support for a path to citizenship for illegals is 31 points higher among under 30s than it is among seniors, 73 percent vs. 42 percent."
But how will it affect elections or policy?
Younger voters are notoriously bad about voting. Each election cycle pundits talk about the youth vote, only to see it improve mildly (if at all). As a result, such views as seen above are not as reflective of the voting population - and that makes an enormous difference.
But last year more than 23 million Americans under 30 cast their ballot in the Presidential contest. What was truly remarkable wasn’t that there was a 4% increase in youth turnout, but that this generation was so overwhelmingly supportive of Barack Obama.
As college student and DNC member Jason Rae told us in early January:
"Had the margin been smaller, like previous elections, many of the states that were decided by only the narrowest of margins would have gone the other way. Take for example places like Indiana or North Carolina. Drop the support of young voters from 66% to say, perhaps, only 60% and you would likely see an entirely different person taking the oath of office on January 20."Therefore it is critical for campaigns to recognize the importance of young voters and the impact that the Millennial generation can make on the political scene. Convincing them to vote is difficult, but it can make a huge difference when they do.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Barack Obama’s 100th Day
Today is President Barack Obama’s 100th day in office. Since his inauguration on January 20th he has made several key accomplishments while maintaining a high approval rating.
Gallup Poll results this week find the nation’s first black president has about 65% approval for job performance, and (except for political ideology) he has broad support across the different demographics.
Although everybody seems to know it’s a "Hallmark holiday" (because it doesn’t mean anything, but everyone observes it) the 100th day of the Obama Administration has served the purpose of letting his supporters tout the days leading up to this milestone as a "Foundation for Change".
BarackObama.com has more on his accomplishments so far.
Just after his inauguration, we did a post on what the first 100 Days would look like.
What did we all get right?
This stimulus bill passed like we said it would - being the most pressing issue at the time, the President was giving it almost full priority.
SCHIP expanded to provide health care coverage to 4 million uninsured children, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed - giving women a fair chance to make sure they receive equal pay for equal work.
What did we all get wrong?
Well, we said the stimulus bill would be signed in early February - it did not even pass through Congress until February 15th, and was not signed until two days later.
We also said that the Employee Free Choice Act could be expected to pass without much difficulty soon, if not within the first 100 days. Since then it has become more and more evident that the card check bill will not have the necessary support in the Senate - at least not during the recession.
But as we said in that post, "In the end, the number of actions taken in the first 100 days does not typically define a Presidency - and it would not be prudent to judge Obama by his first 100 days at this point in history."
In fact, NBC Political Director Chuck Todd made an even more important observation in an article today. "Ultimately, the public judges a first term president, not in the first 100 days, but in the last 300 (in this case, January to November 2012)."
So despite the frenzy over these first hundred days, it really won’t mean anything when we look back on it in the near future.
But Happy Day 100 anyway.
Gallup Poll results this week find the nation’s first black president has about 65% approval for job performance, and (except for political ideology) he has broad support across the different demographics.
Although everybody seems to know it’s a "Hallmark holiday" (because it doesn’t mean anything, but everyone observes it) the 100th day of the Obama Administration has served the purpose of letting his supporters tout the days leading up to this milestone as a "Foundation for Change".
BarackObama.com has more on his accomplishments so far.
Just after his inauguration, we did a post on what the first 100 Days would look like.
What did we all get right?
This stimulus bill passed like we said it would - being the most pressing issue at the time, the President was giving it almost full priority.
SCHIP expanded to provide health care coverage to 4 million uninsured children, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed - giving women a fair chance to make sure they receive equal pay for equal work.
What did we all get wrong?
Well, we said the stimulus bill would be signed in early February - it did not even pass through Congress until February 15th, and was not signed until two days later.
We also said that the Employee Free Choice Act could be expected to pass without much difficulty soon, if not within the first 100 days. Since then it has become more and more evident that the card check bill will not have the necessary support in the Senate - at least not during the recession.
But as we said in that post, "In the end, the number of actions taken in the first 100 days does not typically define a Presidency - and it would not be prudent to judge Obama by his first 100 days at this point in history."
In fact, NBC Political Director Chuck Todd made an even more important observation in an article today. "Ultimately, the public judges a first term president, not in the first 100 days, but in the last 300 (in this case, January to November 2012)."
So despite the frenzy over these first hundred days, it really won’t mean anything when we look back on it in the near future.
But Happy Day 100 anyway.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Why Did Specter Become a Democrat?
The biggest news story today in the political scene is the party-switch by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. As one of the last moderate Republicans in the Senate, Specter was facing a tough primary from former GOP Congressman Pat Toomey.
From his statement today:
But it goes on…
(The emphasis is our own)
Was Specter afraid of losing his primary? Prominent Republican leaders seem to think so.
From a statement by Chairman of the NRSC, Sen. John Cornyn:
And RNC Chairman Michael Steele seemed to agree:
Was this really why Specter changed parties?
Until today, Specter had consistently said it was important for him to remain a Republican. In March, he was quoted by The Hill as saying "I think each of the 41 Republican senators, in a sense — and I don’t want to overstate this — is a national asset because if one was gone, you’d only have 40, the Democrats would have 60, and they would control all of the mechanisms of government."
He was also quoted in Pennsylvania Avenue as saying "And because if we lose my seat they have 60 Democrats, they will pass card check, you will have the Obama tax increases, they will carry out his big spending plans. So the 41st Republican, whose name is Arlen Specter is vital to stopping tax increases, passage of card check, and the Obama big spending plans."
So today’s decision certainly seems peculiar.
A Rasmussen poll from Friday showed Toomey to be leading with a majority of voters.
From Rasmussen’s website:
Specter had already released an ad against Toomey in anticipation for their primary battle, and the two had been telling voters for a while that the other was unelectable.
Recently we commented on how the GOP was purging their more moderate members. A story from Politico on Sunday seems to confirm this phenomenon.
Specter is a moderate Senator who probably was more in line with the Democrats than the Republicans. But it would probably be naïve to say this move was not because of the Toomey challenge.
As a party, the GOP is moving further to the right. This means that some centrist Republicans are leaving the party. In fact, as few as 21% of Americans still consider themselves Republicans according to recent polls. Nate Silver describes this as a Republican Death Spiral.
Specter was on shaky ground with Republicans in Pennsylvania, but he will be a voice for moderate (former) Republicans, Democrats, and independents now that he has switched parties. Now he has a better chance of returning to Washington in 2011.
From his statement today:
Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
But it goes on…
When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.
Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
(The emphasis is our own)
Was Specter afraid of losing his primary? Prominent Republican leaders seem to think so.
From a statement by Chairman of the NRSC, Sen. John Cornyn:
"Senator Specter’s decision today represents the height of political self-preservation. While this presents a short-term disappointment, voters next year will have a clear choice to cast their ballots for a potentially unbridled Democrat super-majority versus the system of checks-and-balances that Americans deserve."
And RNC Chairman Michael Steele seemed to agree:
Let’s be honest-Senator Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.
Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.
Was this really why Specter changed parties?
Until today, Specter had consistently said it was important for him to remain a Republican. In March, he was quoted by The Hill as saying "I think each of the 41 Republican senators, in a sense — and I don’t want to overstate this — is a national asset because if one was gone, you’d only have 40, the Democrats would have 60, and they would control all of the mechanisms of government."
He was also quoted in Pennsylvania Avenue as saying "And because if we lose my seat they have 60 Democrats, they will pass card check, you will have the Obama tax increases, they will carry out his big spending plans. So the 41st Republican, whose name is Arlen Specter is vital to stopping tax increases, passage of card check, and the Obama big spending plans."
So today’s decision certainly seems peculiar.
A Rasmussen poll from Friday showed Toomey to be leading with a majority of voters.
From Rasmussen’s website:
Incumbent Senator Arlen Specter trails former Congressman Pat Toomey by 21 points in an early look at Pennsylvania’s 2010 Republican Primary. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Republican voters statewide say they’d vote for Toomey while just 30% would support Specter.
Specter is viewed favorably by 42% of Pennsylvania Republicans and unfavorably by 55%, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state. Those are stunningly poor numbers for a long-term incumbent senator. Specter was first elected to the Senate in 1980.
Toomey, who served in the House from 1999 to 2005, earns positive reviews from 66% and negative comments from just 19%.
Specter had already released an ad against Toomey in anticipation for their primary battle, and the two had been telling voters for a while that the other was unelectable.
Recently we commented on how the GOP was purging their more moderate members. A story from Politico on Sunday seems to confirm this phenomenon.
Specter is a moderate Senator who probably was more in line with the Democrats than the Republicans. But it would probably be naïve to say this move was not because of the Toomey challenge.
As a party, the GOP is moving further to the right. This means that some centrist Republicans are leaving the party. In fact, as few as 21% of Americans still consider themselves Republicans according to recent polls. Nate Silver describes this as a Republican Death Spiral.
Specter was on shaky ground with Republicans in Pennsylvania, but he will be a voice for moderate (former) Republicans, Democrats, and independents now that he has switched parties. Now he has a better chance of returning to Washington in 2011.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Where Should Obama Stand on the “Torture Debate”?
Over the past week the Obama Administration has become engulfed in the debate over prosecuting Bush-era officials for approving torture-like tactics in the War on Terror.
It all started when the Obama Administration released legal memos of Bush’s Office of Legal Council justifying aggressive interrogation techniques to be used by the CIA. After former Vice-President Dick Cheney slammed the current President for this move, the White House seemingly moved back and forth on whether or not these officials should be prosecuted.
Even Obama’s main man for message, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, had trouble explaining the President’s position to David Gregory on Sunday.
It is always important in politics to keep your message clear and consistent - so far the White House has failed to do so with the torture debate. This is truly the first real political blunder of the Obama Administration. The White House needs to come up with a clear and firm position.
So what should Obama’s position be?
A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that Americans are deeply divided over the torture debate. 51% of respondents said the Obama Administration should investigate Bush-era officials, 47% of respondents said they should not.
The poll also found that 7 out of 10 Democrats support that course of action, while 7 out of 10 Republicans oppose it. Independents were split about 50-50.
From an ethical or policy-driven standpoint, many complicated factors would go in to determining the President’s stance. But speaking in purely political terms, the best position would be to support Justice Department investigations and ultimately prosecuting Bush Administration officials.
It is true that this would upset many Republicans, particularly those in Congress. In our last post we mentioned that Rep. Peter King called for the GOP to halt all Congressional activities should Obama pursue investigations. The President’s former opponent, Sen. John McCain, said it would be a “witch hunt”.
To slightly adjust a famous quote of Abraham Lincoln’s, you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all the people all of the time.
But thus far President Obama has straddled the fence on the issue and pleased almost no one. If anyone should be getting pleased, it’s the base.
The grassroots liberals and Democratic activists in this country have been horrified over how the President has decided to “look forward”. Obama might not be seeking retribution, but the liberal base simply is. They insist that the rule of law be enforced and that those who authorized torture practices in the past must be held accountable now.
If President Obama will want to hold seats for Democrats in 2010 - or win his own re-election in 2012 - he will have to recognize the importance of these activists. Without them the Democrats will not have the donors or volunteers to wage a successful campaign.
It all comes down to a fundamental - though seldom recognized - rule in American politics. Simply put, you can’t win-over the people unless you first win-over the base.
It all started when the Obama Administration released legal memos of Bush’s Office of Legal Council justifying aggressive interrogation techniques to be used by the CIA. After former Vice-President Dick Cheney slammed the current President for this move, the White House seemingly moved back and forth on whether or not these officials should be prosecuted.
Even Obama’s main man for message, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, had trouble explaining the President’s position to David Gregory on Sunday.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
It is always important in politics to keep your message clear and consistent - so far the White House has failed to do so with the torture debate. This is truly the first real political blunder of the Obama Administration. The White House needs to come up with a clear and firm position.
So what should Obama’s position be?
A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that Americans are deeply divided over the torture debate. 51% of respondents said the Obama Administration should investigate Bush-era officials, 47% of respondents said they should not.
The poll also found that 7 out of 10 Democrats support that course of action, while 7 out of 10 Republicans oppose it. Independents were split about 50-50.
From an ethical or policy-driven standpoint, many complicated factors would go in to determining the President’s stance. But speaking in purely political terms, the best position would be to support Justice Department investigations and ultimately prosecuting Bush Administration officials.
It is true that this would upset many Republicans, particularly those in Congress. In our last post we mentioned that Rep. Peter King called for the GOP to halt all Congressional activities should Obama pursue investigations. The President’s former opponent, Sen. John McCain, said it would be a “witch hunt”.
To slightly adjust a famous quote of Abraham Lincoln’s, you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all the people all of the time.
But thus far President Obama has straddled the fence on the issue and pleased almost no one. If anyone should be getting pleased, it’s the base.
The grassroots liberals and Democratic activists in this country have been horrified over how the President has decided to “look forward”. Obama might not be seeking retribution, but the liberal base simply is. They insist that the rule of law be enforced and that those who authorized torture practices in the past must be held accountable now.
If President Obama will want to hold seats for Democrats in 2010 - or win his own re-election in 2012 - he will have to recognize the importance of these activists. Without them the Democrats will not have the donors or volunteers to wage a successful campaign.
It all comes down to a fundamental - though seldom recognized - rule in American politics. Simply put, you can’t win-over the people unless you first win-over the base.
Friday, April 24, 2009
The Right Gets Angry
It’s Friday, April 24, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:
A string of stories from Politico this morning suggest that the GOP is angrier than ever in the few months since they’ve lost all power.
First, conservative members of the House want to see DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano step down following a memo that warns the government to watch out for "right-wing extremists".
Next up, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has suggested that the GOP go on strike if any prosecutions are carried out on Bush Administration officials for ties to torture.
And finally, a new resolution sits before the Republican National Committee. This is how it the end of it reads:
Apparently in an email to his fellow committee members, James Bopp Jr. said "Just as President Reagan’s identification of the Soviet Union as the 'evil empire' galvanized opposition to communism, we hope that the accurate depiction of the Democrats as a Socialist Party will galvanize opposition to their march to socialism."
That's not a joke, by the way.
A string of stories from Politico this morning suggest that the GOP is angrier than ever in the few months since they’ve lost all power.
First, conservative members of the House want to see DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano step down following a memo that warns the government to watch out for "right-wing extremists".
"Singling out political opponents for working against the ruling party is precisely the tactic of every tyrannical government from Red China to Venezuela," said Texas Rep. John Carter, a member of the party's elected leadership who has organized an hour of floor speeches Wednesday night to call for Napolitano's ouster. "The first step in the process is creating unfounded public suspicion of political opponents, followed by arresting and jailing any who continue speaking against the regime."
Next up, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has suggested that the GOP go on strike if any prosecutions are carried out on Bush Administration officials for ties to torture.
King, the outspoken ranking member of the House homeland security committee, said Republicans should "shut down [legislative] activity across the board" if any Bush-era officials are hauled into court.
"We would need to have a scorched-earth policy and use procedural means to bring the place to a halt — go to war".
And finally, a new resolution sits before the Republican National Committee. This is how it the end of it reads:
RESOLVED, that we the members of the Republican National Committee call on the Democratic Party to be truthful and honest with the American people by acknowledging that they have evolved from a party of tax and spend to a party of tax and nationalize and, therefore, should agree to rename themselves the Democrat Socialist Party.
Apparently in an email to his fellow committee members, James Bopp Jr. said "Just as President Reagan’s identification of the Soviet Union as the 'evil empire' galvanized opposition to communism, we hope that the accurate depiction of the Democrats as a Socialist Party will galvanize opposition to their march to socialism."
That's not a joke, by the way.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Gay Marriage Becomes Relevant Again - But Is It More Popular This Time?
During the Bush Administration, Republicans made a point of using gay marriage as a wedge issue, knowing it was unpopular to the majority of Americans and that it could bring conservative voters to the polls to support GOP politicians.
But then the economy collapsed, and gay marriage was not an issue in the 2008 Presidential race.
Now, because it is legal in Iowa and Vermont, gay marriage is an issue again - especially in the state of New York. Recently, Governor David Patterson (D-NY) proposed legislation to legalize gay marriages in the Empire State, and there is a small chance it could pass.
According to some recent polling, a plurality - or even a majority - of New Yorkers support gay marriage.
Even in Upstate New York, the majority of respondents are in favor.
The bill is expected to pass the New York Assembly easily, but may have trouble in the State Senate - Democrats only control 32 of the 62 seats, and at least 3 of them have voiced opposition to the legislation.
And with strong Republican opposition, the bill might not even come to a vote this year.
But as we have mentioned before, the tides are changing on this issue. The political statistics guru, Nate Silver, believes that more than half the states in the union could defeat theoretical gay marriage bans within the next five years.
By the middle of the next decade, we might very well talk about legalizing gay marriage nationally - and it may even be possible. Democratic Strategist Anne Greenberg recently told Salon that support for gay rights is increasing at a faster pace than support for race-and/or-gender-based civil rights did (although the rate of the support’s growth was still rather slow).
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.
We never thought we’d say these next words: we have to agree with Perez Hilton.
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.
Some, like the former GOP Presidential candidate’s daughter, are catching on. Meghan McCain recently wrote in her Daily Beast column: “That more and more people are discussing gay rights speaks positively for the millions of young and progressive Republicans.” She has said in the past that if the GOP does not support gay marriage they will be on the losing side of history.
But who are some of these young and progressive Republicans? The answer might surprise you: evangelical kids.
From Greenberg’s answers to Salon:
If Republicans are going to have this sort of confusion within their ranks it seems even more unlikely that they will be able to use the gay marriage issue the way they have in the months and years ahead.
Is the gay marriage issue back? Yes.
Do liberals have to fear? Not anymore.
But then the economy collapsed, and gay marriage was not an issue in the 2008 Presidential race.
Now, because it is legal in Iowa and Vermont, gay marriage is an issue again - especially in the state of New York. Recently, Governor David Patterson (D-NY) proposed legislation to legalize gay marriages in the Empire State, and there is a small chance it could pass.
According to some recent polling, a plurality - or even a majority - of New Yorkers support gay marriage.
Even in Upstate New York, the majority of respondents are in favor.
The bill is expected to pass the New York Assembly easily, but may have trouble in the State Senate - Democrats only control 32 of the 62 seats, and at least 3 of them have voiced opposition to the legislation.
And with strong Republican opposition, the bill might not even come to a vote this year.
But as we have mentioned before, the tides are changing on this issue. The political statistics guru, Nate Silver, believes that more than half the states in the union could defeat theoretical gay marriage bans within the next five years.
By the middle of the next decade, we might very well talk about legalizing gay marriage nationally - and it may even be possible. Democratic Strategist Anne Greenberg recently told Salon that support for gay rights is increasing at a faster pace than support for race-and/or-gender-based civil rights did (although the rate of the support’s growth was still rather slow).
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.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
We never thought we’d say these next words: we have to agree with Perez Hilton.
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.
Some, like the former GOP Presidential candidate’s daughter, are catching on. Meghan McCain recently wrote in her Daily Beast column: “That more and more people are discussing gay rights speaks positively for the millions of young and progressive Republicans.” She has said in the past that if the GOP does not support gay marriage they will be on the losing side of history.
But who are some of these young and progressive Republicans? The answer might surprise you: evangelical kids.
From Greenberg’s answers to Salon:
"We did an oversample of young white evangelicals, and obviously this is a community who is very hostile to gay marriage. But what was interesting was that the same generational differences that we see in the population overall, we saw in evangelicals. It turns out that the majority of young white evangelicals oppose gay marriage; [but] a majority, 57 percent, [support] some sort of legal recognition."
If Republicans are going to have this sort of confusion within their ranks it seems even more unlikely that they will be able to use the gay marriage issue the way they have in the months and years ahead.
Is the gay marriage issue back? Yes.
Do liberals have to fear? Not anymore.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Purging the Republican Party
Tomorrow John McCain will officially have an opponent for 2010 - but it won’t be a Democrat.
Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, will be taking on the former GOP Presidential candidate in the Republican Primary. Politico’s Ben Smith includes a sample of tomorrow’s press release:
But McCain is not the only prominent Republican to have such opposition from within the party. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has to worry about a Primary rematch with the more conservative Pat Toomey, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) has a Primary battle with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for his re-election, and former House Minority Whip Roy Blunt is not considered a shoe-in for the Missouri GOP’s Senate nomination.
Blunt had a disappointing first-quarter, raising about $542,000. As a result, former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman is expected to jump in to the race soon. She might be the last person Blunt wants to face.
From Politico:
The GOP has had to re-examine itself in recent years since the Democrats retook Congress in 2006. To many Republican activists, the GOP lost the confidence of the people for increasing the size of government, increasing the national debt, and increasing the influence of lobbyists. Before they return to power, these conservative, populist activists will want to purge their party of the politicians who embodied that Washington-insider culture.
Could it backfire on them?
Democrats seem to think the split in the GOP could be beneficial come 2010. In Pennsylvania, both Specter and Toomey are warning Republicans that their opponent would lose a General Election.
Specter says Toomey “is a surefire loser in November,” while Toomey insists that "Voters are just fed up with Sen. Specter”.
But Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chairman T.J. Rooney thinks that the GOP battle will be what helps the Democrats. "Now is a perfect time for people like myself to shut up and sit back and watch the show," he says.
Meanwhile in Texas, far-right Governor Perry is skating on thin ice for his recent comments about the right to secede from the union, and Democrats are hoping to capitalize in a big way.
Also from Politico:
Tom Schieffer may be just that candidate. He’s a former Texas Congressman who is business-friendly and served as an ambassador during the Bush Administration. While he might not be a darling of the Democratic base, he would certainly be acceptable in the eyes of moderate Texans if Perry should win the Primary.
It makes sense for the populists in the GOP to try to purge themselves of elected-officials that represent the beltway, but if they try replace them with figures further to the right they might be in for a big surprise - most Americans just aren’t as conservative as they are.
Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, will be taking on the former GOP Presidential candidate in the Republican Primary. Politico’s Ben Smith includes a sample of tomorrow’s press release:"John McCain has failed miserably in his duty to secure this nation's borders and protect the people of Arizona from the escalating violence and lawlessness," Simcox said. "He has fought real efforts over the years at every turn, opting to hold our nation's border security hostage to his amnesty schemes. Coupled with his votes for reckless bailout spending and big government solutions to our nation's problems, John McCain is out of touch with everyday Arizonans. Enough is enough."
But McCain is not the only prominent Republican to have such opposition from within the party. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has to worry about a Primary rematch with the more conservative Pat Toomey, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) has a Primary battle with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for his re-election, and former House Minority Whip Roy Blunt is not considered a shoe-in for the Missouri GOP’s Senate nomination.
Blunt had a disappointing first-quarter, raising about $542,000. As a result, former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman is expected to jump in to the race soon. She might be the last person Blunt wants to face.
From Politico:
"I like Roy Blunt, but the Republican Party keeps going back to the same old names, and we’ve lost a lot of races doing that," said Lincoln County GOP Chairwoman Carol Wessel. "You got to have that money to run, and I just think people are just being cautious right now with their money."
"Roy Blunt has been a very big part of the mess we’re in. His new wife is a lobbyist. His children are lobbyists. We need a fresh face up there," said Norm Harty, a longtime Republican activist and donor from southeast Missouri. "He’s going to have blood dripping from him; he’s going to be so beaten up."
…Steelman ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for governor in 2008…[but she] managed to cultivate a populist following that she seems poised to tap into once again. Thus far, she has been running a shadow campaign, marked by two relatively quiet trips to Washington over the past two months and small, private meetings with prospective donors and organizers. More recently, Steelman has ramped up her visibility by speaking at a central Missouri tea party on Tax Day and unveiling a revamped political website.
The GOP has had to re-examine itself in recent years since the Democrats retook Congress in 2006. To many Republican activists, the GOP lost the confidence of the people for increasing the size of government, increasing the national debt, and increasing the influence of lobbyists. Before they return to power, these conservative, populist activists will want to purge their party of the politicians who embodied that Washington-insider culture.
Could it backfire on them?
Democrats seem to think the split in the GOP could be beneficial come 2010. In Pennsylvania, both Specter and Toomey are warning Republicans that their opponent would lose a General Election.
Specter says Toomey “is a surefire loser in November,” while Toomey insists that "Voters are just fed up with Sen. Specter”.
But Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chairman T.J. Rooney thinks that the GOP battle will be what helps the Democrats. "Now is a perfect time for people like myself to shut up and sit back and watch the show," he says.
Meanwhile in Texas, far-right Governor Perry is skating on thin ice for his recent comments about the right to secede from the union, and Democrats are hoping to capitalize in a big way.
Also from Politico:
Perry, who won with less than 40 percent in a four-way general election field in 2006, is not popular with the general voting public in Texas. He is, however, the darling of the far-right wing that dominates the Republican primary electorate. Chances are that he may defeat Hutchison in a mean, ugly, down-and-dirty primary next March. If he does, his victory could rip apart the Republican Party and open the door for a moderate Democratic to achieve a clean win in November.
Tom Schieffer may be just that candidate. He’s a former Texas Congressman who is business-friendly and served as an ambassador during the Bush Administration. While he might not be a darling of the Democratic base, he would certainly be acceptable in the eyes of moderate Texans if Perry should win the Primary.
It makes sense for the populists in the GOP to try to purge themselves of elected-officials that represent the beltway, but if they try replace them with figures further to the right they might be in for a big surprise - most Americans just aren’t as conservative as they are.
Monday, April 20, 2009
What Was the Impact of the Tea Bag Protests?
Last week, conservative protesters caught national attention on Tax Day for Tea Party - or Tea Bag - protests. Approximately 300,000 people poured into the streets to sound off their opinions on current fiscal policy.
But how representative were they of the average American?
According to a Gallup poll conducted before the protests, views of personal income taxes are among the most positive since 1956. 48% of respondents said the taxes they paid this year were "about right" and only 46% said the taxes they paid this year were "too high".
Additionally, 61% of respondents said the taxes they are paying this year is “fair” - a figure that is consistent with the past several years.
Answers to both questions fell along predictable partisan lines, and respondents who had an income of $75,000 or more last year were more likely to say their taxes were “too high”.
Yet the concern for high government spending we saw in the Tea Party protests does seem to resonate with more Americans. Another recent Gallup poll finds that 55% of Americans believe Obama’s proposals to stimulate the economy call for “too much” government spending.
But here’s where the responses get interesting. The question of government spending was asked to a random sample of half of the respondents. The other half was asked if they believed Obama’s proposal called for too much expansion of government power. These were the results.
And overall, 53% of respondents said they approve of the way the government has responded to the economic crisis, while only 44% say they disapprove.
And while the Tea Baggers were deriding President Obama as a “socialist” in hundreds of cities, a third Gallup poll shows the American people feel overwhelmingly confident in his positions on the economy.
It would certainly appear that the Tea Baggers were only representing about 29% of Americans.
But will the demonstrations change the average American’s mind?
So far the change in public perception over Obama’s fiscal policy is yet to be seen - but the approval ratings have not really changed since Tax Day.
From April 10-13 the approval rating was 62% and the disapproval rating was 29%. The latest numbers from the graph were collected from April 17-19. The Rasmussen Obama Approval Index (which has consistently more conservative estimates) seems to confirm this lack of change.
Yet it would be negligent to say that the Tea Party protests had no great significance. Although it may not have changed any public opinion (as these things usually don’t) it has been an opportunity for the conservative base to get excited again. Republicans will want to capitalize on this excitement and use it to boost fundraising and strengthen volunteer networks.
And that might just have a big effect in 2010.
But how representative were they of the average American?
According to a Gallup poll conducted before the protests, views of personal income taxes are among the most positive since 1956. 48% of respondents said the taxes they paid this year were "about right" and only 46% said the taxes they paid this year were "too high".
Additionally, 61% of respondents said the taxes they are paying this year is “fair” - a figure that is consistent with the past several years.
Answers to both questions fell along predictable partisan lines, and respondents who had an income of $75,000 or more last year were more likely to say their taxes were “too high”.
Yet the concern for high government spending we saw in the Tea Party protests does seem to resonate with more Americans. Another recent Gallup poll finds that 55% of Americans believe Obama’s proposals to stimulate the economy call for “too much” government spending.
But here’s where the responses get interesting. The question of government spending was asked to a random sample of half of the respondents. The other half was asked if they believed Obama’s proposal called for too much expansion of government power. These were the results.
And overall, 53% of respondents said they approve of the way the government has responded to the economic crisis, while only 44% say they disapprove.
And while the Tea Baggers were deriding President Obama as a “socialist” in hundreds of cities, a third Gallup poll shows the American people feel overwhelmingly confident in his positions on the economy.
It would certainly appear that the Tea Baggers were only representing about 29% of Americans.
But will the demonstrations change the average American’s mind?
So far the change in public perception over Obama’s fiscal policy is yet to be seen - but the approval ratings have not really changed since Tax Day.
From April 10-13 the approval rating was 62% and the disapproval rating was 29%. The latest numbers from the graph were collected from April 17-19. The Rasmussen Obama Approval Index (which has consistently more conservative estimates) seems to confirm this lack of change.
Yet it would be negligent to say that the Tea Party protests had no great significance. Although it may not have changed any public opinion (as these things usually don’t) it has been an opportunity for the conservative base to get excited again. Republicans will want to capitalize on this excitement and use it to boost fundraising and strengthen volunteer networks.
And that might just have a big effect in 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
