Premium Sponsor


Featured Sponsor


Our Sponsors


Ad Networks

Advertise Liberally

Buy an ad on all of the top liberal blogs with just one click.

Site Stats

SSP Daily Digest: 11/30

by: Crisitunity

Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 3:33 PM EST


CT-Sen: It's a rumor that's been going around for a few weeks that seemed ridiculous, but it only seems to be getting louder, so it's worth a mention: Ralph Nader is considering a run for the Senate in Connecticut under the Green Party's banner, and is gauging grass-roots support for a race. The knee-jerk reaction is that this is one more piece of bad news Chris Dodd doesn't need, but it's worth considering that Nader may actually help Dodd more than hurt him, by diluting the pool of anti-Dodd votes, giving an option for Dems and indies who are specifically anti-Dodd and anti-bankster, other than voting for the Republican.

IL-Sen: Freshman Rep. Aaron Schock gave his endorsement to Rep. Mark Kirk in his quest to win the GOP Senate nomination. People are treating this like it boosts Kirk's conservative bona fides, but Schock has turned out to be more of a low-key, establishment player since getting into the House than his loose-lipped statements during his campaign would have suggested.

KY-Sen: Rand Paul and the NRSC seem to be in a standoff, over the same old issue, whether or not the NRSC plans to endorse in the primary. Paul was spreading the word last week, based on conversations with the NRSC, that the NRSC would not endorse, but spokesperson Brian Walsh now says the NRSC doesn't "anticipate" endorsing but reserves the right to do so.

MA-Sen: Rep. Michael Capuano got an endorsement from one of the deans of Bay State politics, former Gov. (and presidential candidate) Mike Dukakis. However, he might be overshadowed a little by Alan Khazei, who's attracted little attention so far but seems to be closing strong, if the last Rasmussen poll is any indication. Khazei snagged endorsements from both the Boston Globe and retired Gen. Wesley Clark.

NC-Sen: Campaign Diaries managed to snag an internal polling memo for the Elaine Marshall campaign, which leads me to wonder why the DSCC is stiff-arming her and still pining for former state Sen. Cal Cunningham to get in the race. Marshall leads with 42% in the primary, with attorney Kenneth Lewis at 7 (including 14% of African-Americans) and Cunningham at 5. At some point, the DSCC's tepidness about her, if it doesn't change, is going to start affecting broader perceptions of her -- likely to create a fundraising vicious circle of not being able to raise funds well because she's not perceived as not being able to win because she can't raise funds well. The poll was conducted by PPP, although Marshall has previously used Lake Research as her pollster.

NY-Sen-B: Rasmussen took their first look at a Rudy-centric Senate race in New York, finding Rudy Giuliani beating Kirsten Gillibrand 53-40 (a very similar margin to last week's Marist poll). Giuliani has 63/33 favorables, while Gillibrand is at 46/41 (this has to be the best-known Gillibrand has ever been, but one of Rasmussen's many quirks is to show everyone as being well-known). The New York Post also has the scoop on a Republican who seems likelier to run (although it's on the gossip page rather than the politics section!): Port Authority Commissioner Bruce Blakeman is considering a running for the Republicans. Blakeman lost the 1998 state Controller's race to Carl McCall; also, his ex-wife is now dating Paul McCartney, which is apparently Page Six's angle on all this.

UT-Sen: Here's an interesting ploy: Rep. Jason Chaffetz (rumored as a potential Senate candidate) is taking a highly visible stand against the Obama administration's decision to deploy additional troops to Afghanistan, saying it's time to bring them home and that he's opposed to "nation building." That puts him up against the party orthodoxy, but it also leads to the question of whether Chaffetz is a bit of an outlier here or if the movement conservatives are going to be moving in more of an isolationist direction heading into 2012 (and whether that's because of their paranoid nativist worldview, or just because it gives them one more thing to oppose the President on).

AL-Gov: Two endorsements in the Alabama governor's race, where there are heated primaries on both sides. Mitt Romney has endorsed Treasurer Kay Ivey, perhaps as payback for chairing his Alabama campaign but also a potential thumb-in-the-eye to the religious right, who are naturally supporting Roy Moore in the race. On the Dem side, Sam Jones, the first African-American mayor of Mobile, endorsed Rep. Artur Davis.

MA-Gov: Rasmussen threw in some gubernatorial numbers to their sample last week of the Senate special election primary, and they continue to find that incumbent Dem Deval Patrick has the edge. It's a little narrower than their last poll or Suffolk's recent poll -- Patrick leads independent Tim Cahill and Republican Christy Mihos 32-28-26 and leads Republican Charlie Baker and Cahill 33-28-25 -- but it still shows Patrick benefiting from Cahill splitting the anti-Patrick vote.

MI-Gov: A poll of the Republican field in the Michigan gubernatorial race by Mitchell Research for the Detroit News finds a small lead for AG Mike Cox. Cox leads Rep. Peter Hoekstra 27-24, with 12 for Oakland Co. Sheriff Mike Bouchard and 3 each for state Sen. Tom George and businessman Rick Snyder. The poll also finds Cox beating Democratic Lt. Gov. John Cherry by 16 points in the general, although specific numbers aren't reported for some reason.

NY-Gov: Another brave Republican is considering taking on the gubernatorial race: Emil Henry Jr. He's got just the right resume for these troubled times: He was assistant Treasury Secretary in the Bush administration, and before that, an executive at Lehman Brothers. Ex-Rep. Rick Lazio is already in the GOP field.

UT-Gov: Democratic Salt Lake County mayor Peter Corroon is sounding more like a candidate for governor, in next year's special election against appointed GOP incumbent Gary Herbert. A recent Deseret News/KSL-TV poll finds Herbert leading Corroon 56-32. Corroon actually sounds encouraged by these numbers; considering it's Utah, I suppose they could be much worse.

CA-45: More Mitt Romney news, and it's a tea leaf that the GOP is concerned about defending Mary Bono Mack in the 45th even as they go on the offense in swing districts elsewhere: Romney will be appearing at a Bono Mack fundraiser in the district on Jan. 9.

FL-19: Charlie Crist moved the date on the general special election to replace resigning Rep. Robert Wexler, which had been originally scheduled Apr. 6. He moved it to Apr. 13, so it wouldn't conflict with Passover (a problem in this heavily Jewish district).

GA-08: Democrats dodged a bullet in the 8th, where Rep. Jim Marshall may get the easiest ride of any Dem in a dark-red southern district next year. Republican State Sen. Ross Tolleson said he'd like to run for Congress at some point, but this won't be the year. Tolleson threw his support to Angela Hicks, a businesswoman who's one of several little-known candidates in the hunt.

GA-12: It's official: former state Sen. Regina Thomas will be challenging Rep. John Barrow in the Democratic primary next year. Barrow is unusual among the most problematic Blue Dogs because he's in a district with a Democratic-leaning PVI and thus one where a better Dem could still win a general election (although it's one where African-American voting tends to fall off during off-year elections). Thomas piqued some netroots interest last year because of this unusual circumstance, but between a late start, a low-visibility strategy focused on word-of-mouth through black churches, and an Obama endorsement of Barrow, she only cleared 24% in last year's primary. We'll have to see if the earlier start helps this time.

IA-02: Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who came within 18 points of Rep. David Loebsack last year thanks to a lot of help from those meddling Ophthalmologists, says she'll try again in 2010. She's not alone in the GOP field, though; interestingly, she's up against two guys who both ran for Senate in 2008, businessman Christopher Reed (who made it through to the general against Tom Harkin, only to get flattened) and Steve Rathje (who lost the primary).

NH-01: I don't know if this is a case of once-highly-touted Manchester mayor Frank Guinta losing momentum, or just Some Dude with delusions of grandeur, but businessman Richard Ashooh is filing exploratory paperwork to run in the GOP primary. The winner faces Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter in what's likely to be a close race.

TN-06: The GOP is trying to cajole a state Senator into getting into the race against long-time Democratic Rep. Bart Gordon in the once-swingy, now R+13 6th. Jim Tracy says he's strongly considering the race. There's one catch: Rutherford County Republican chair Lou Ann Zelenik is already in the race, and has the ability to self-fund.

TX-17: Here's a Dem in a dark-red district who caught a big-time break on the recruiting front, though: Rep. Chet Edwards won't be facing state Sen. Steve Ogden, as had been rumored. Ogden announced that he'll run for another term in the Senate instead. (Thanks to the small size of Texas's Senate, Ogden actually has more constituents than Edwards.) 2008 candidate Rob Curnock, who came within single-digits of Edwards, is running again, though.

GA-Super. of Education: Georgia's Republican Superintendent of Education, Kathy Cox, is persisting in running for re-election next year despite having recently filed for bankruptcy to escape $3.5 million in debt. The story gets even weirder: this is despite Cox having won $1 million on "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" -- despite having pledged to give that money to charity, her creditors are now coming after that money. (Is there any precedent for a statewide elected official appearing on a game show?) Cox now faces opposition in a GOP primary from former state Rep. Roger Hines.

Nassau Co. Exec: The counting of absentee ballots in Nassau County is finally winding down in this month's most drawn-out election, and it looks like Republican challenger Ed Mangano may actually succeed in upsetting incumbent Dem Tom Suozzi. Mangano leads by 217 with few ballots remaining. Even if the count concludes today, it won't be the last word, as legal challenges to a number of votes will still need to be resolved.

Mayors: New Orleans mayoral candidate James Perry is getting a jump on political advertising, and his ad is certainly attention-grabbing too. It includes a variety of bleeped-out profanities as local residents (or actors portraying them) let everyone know how they feel about career politicians.

NY-St. Ass.: Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava says she's going to stay a Republican, despite losing her leadership position in the wake of her imploded House campaign. Despite her many impure thoughts, she says she'd still clock in at 7 out of 10 on the RNC's new purity test.

Redistricting: CQ Politics sits down with filmmaker Jeff Reichert, whose upcoming documentary on redistricting is slated for release next year. I've been emailing with Jeff about this project for a while now, and it looks very interesting. (D)

Crisitunity :: SSP Daily Digest: 11/30
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Small error: you have Dede in the NJ Assembly


Nader
That argument smells suspiciously Daggett like to me. If people want rid of Dodd they will vote for the Republican. I think it much more likely Nader would take away just enough votes from the base to make it impossible for Dodd to win. After all his problems are more with indies and monderates it seems to me.

I agree.
I'm of the opinion that Daggett colapsed precisely because of the late polls showing voting for him was in effect helping Corzine win reelection.

Besides that, I can't see those who would have voted for the Republican voting for Nader instead.  I think it's more of a stay home vs. vote for Nader.


[ Parent ]
I think there are enough
lean-Democratic independent-type voters who are somewhat tired of Dodd, but yet can't stomach voting for the Repub.
Nader running in an established third party would become a perfect vehicle for these folks to send a message.

I wish I could believe the spin that:
"Nader may actually help Dodd more than hurt him, by diluting the pool of anti-Dodd votes". But right now I need a lot of convincing.


[ Parent ]
Yeah
I think there are enough lean-Democratic independent-type voters who are somewhat tired of Dodd, but yet can't stomach voting for the Repub.
 I think these are the stay home vs. vote Nader people.  Either they'd vote for him or no one (if they're that fed up with Dodd).  I just can't see someone who is torn between Nader or the Repub - or at least enough of these people to make a difference.

[ Parent ]
This is why people don't like Nader.
He should run in the Democratic primary, where he'd be the likely favorite in both the primary and the general.  Or he could wait until 2012 and run against Lieberman, if Joe even decides to run in the Democratic primary again.  

Stuff like this makes me think that Nader would rather be a bomb-thrower instead of actually getting elected to the Senate where he could theoretically get a lot of things done.  


[ Parent ]
What makes you think that Nader would be a favorite in the primary?
I mean really, Nader's about as popular among Democrats as George Bush at this point (probably because Nader is seen as having elected Bush).

No way in hell would Dodd lose a primary to someone like Ralph Nader.

Your go-to source for great sarcasm


[ Parent ]
Nader wouldn't get more than 20% in a Dem Primary
Hell, Nader probably couldn't beat Lieberman in a Democratic Primary.

[ Parent ]
You know, you're probably right
but in an alternate universe where Nader hadn't run for president in 2000, he probably could've run for Senate or Governor in Connecticut and won.  Certainly, he would have been a good candidate against Rell, or Rowland before her.

The underlying point I was making still stands--that Nader would have a better chance in the primary (and the general if he won the primary) than as an independent.  Heck, why not run against Gore in the Democratic primary?  This "third-party run" just cements his legacy as someone who would rather be a bomb thrower than an elected official.  This shouldn't detract from the work he did earlier in his career, but as you rightly point out, it will.  


[ Parent ]
Frankly
It's not even so much that he ran in 2000, since the closeness of the election, and Gore's moral posturing on too many things (not to mention picking Lieberman as his running mate), it's that he ran in 2004 saying "there's no difference between Kerry and Bush" and then running yet again in 2008 saying that Obama was no different from McCain (anyone who argues that with a straight face should be institutionalized).

Nader's problem was and continues to be that he's an egomaniac who seems to think that Obama's doing the exact same thing as John "Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" McCain would've done had he been elected.

Nader's done good works, but he's let his own ego get in the way of doing meaningful work, and that has, rightfully, hurt his image among Democrats.

Still, I see your point, and I think it's a good one (and we'd all be better off had Nader decided that in 1999-2000).

Your go-to source for great sarcasm


[ Parent ]
Attn: Kos! Please! We need a CT-Sen poll with
Nader included. This is serious. Thank you.

[ Parent ]
Nader won't have a Daggett effect in CT-Sen, I think
because Dodd is nowhere near as unpopular as Corzine.

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

[ Parent ]
NH-1: Ashooh is no schlub
He's an insider and is gonna raise big bux.  And he's a defense contractor lobbyist.  Guinta's got a fight.  It's going to be bloody.

Dede: 7 out of 10 purity won't do.
Teabaggers are now requiring 11 out of 10 purity.

I'd bet the majority of teabaggers
Would take issue with her on that.

[ Parent ]
The entire left blogosphere laughs
at the GOP purity test, but I don't think they are wrong in doing so.  I don't believe that the GOP base was wrong in rejecting Linc Chafee, who openly said that he wouldn't vote for GW Bush.  You cannot be an elected member of the party and say that you will oppose the party nominee. I don't believe that the GOP base was wrong in rejecting Dede, who was not in the mainstream of the GOP.  They are wrong in expecting Jim DeMints everywhere, but it is completely fair for the GOP base to expect at least a George pataki in NY-23.  

My only quibble is that the passing threshold on the test should depend on the district.  


[ Parent ]
But that's exactly the problem
They don't make adjustments by district or by state.  The teabaggers believe that there is this widespread ideological mandate for conservatism like there was 25 years ago.  While I wouldn't venture to say there is a liberal mandate either, much of the nation has certainly moved away from many of the core orthodoxies of Reagan Republicanism.  They don't seem to recognize that.  Plus, the way they are doing it is netirely wrong - instead of having a constructive debate within the party about its future direction, the national organizations are essentially giving candidates a list of edicts that must be unquestioningly followed.  That's not how a party should work, and that's not how a democracy works.  Party barons shouldn't have a final say on policy.  Plus, the damn list they're pushing is literally based on opposing whatever Obama does - it contains nothing constructive about legitimate stances on policy issues.

Imagine if in 2006 liberal activists became so angry at, say, Heath Shuler's candidacy that they organized a huge national campaign against him, one that was aided by national publications like Mother Jones and The Nation, and they supported a liberal third party candidate.  Shuler would have obviously lost, and to what end?  It would have accomplished nothing and would have only reinforced to voters in that region that their opinions on issues don't matter.  That's why groups like the Blue Dogs and New Democrats exist in the party and it's why Senators like Bob Casey can have legitimate sway in legislative matters and aren't pushed aside like a neglected stepchild just because they break on particular issues.  If you want to discuss ousting Congressmembers that aren't ideologically aligned with their state or district than have at it, but it is my sincere hope the Democratic Party never has a "purity" checklist to determine support.


[ Parent ]
Lieberman
Dems who want to kick Lieberman out of the Dem caucus should not make fun of purity tests for any other party.  Also, a Pataki Republican would have won NY -23 easily.  That is what makes what the party chairman did up there so amazing.

[ Parent ]
Selective purity
In Connecticut we had a golden opportunity to get a good dem elected to a solid blue state.  That is why we tried to defeat Lieberman.  There was no chance of losing that seat to the GOP.

That is a few cry from what republicans are trying to do in trying to kick people like Scozzofava this year or Chafee 2006 to the curb.  In those cases it was very clear that picking the more ideologically pure candidate could and did cost them the race.

I support primary challenges to seats where we can safely elect better democrats, not in places like the deep south where a conservative dem is the most electable and progressives would get demolished.


[ Parent ]
Agreed, thank you


[ Parent ]
Had Chafee survived in 2006
Republicans would have controlled the Senate for another two years.  In the instance of Rhode Island 2006 it made zero sense in challenging Chafee.

[ Parent ]
I disagree
If Chafee had shut up and voted as a moderate/liberal, there's an argument to be made.  But when he said he won't vote for Bush, he crossed the line.  He crossed a bold bold line.

[ Parent ]
He said he wouldn't vote for Bush
He did NOT say he wouldn't vote for Mitch McConnell as majority leader.  In the end that was what mattered.  Had Chafee won re-election in 2006 the Senate breakdown would have been 50-50 with Cheney as the tiebreaker and giving republican 2 more years of Senate control.  

[ Parent ]
Chafee
I could of seen him vote for Reid as majority leader if he had survived reelection. Linc was probably a throw back to the Rockefeller Republicans, conservative on fiscal issues, moderate on social issues. He was like his dad, who was one of the most liberal members of the senate.  

[ Parent ]
I'd like to see stats on this
He was like his dad, who was one of the most liberal members of the senate.

The Chafees were left of center, and certainly liberal for Republicans, but it is probably saying too much that they were among the most liberal members of the Senate, overall. I stand to be corrected, though.


[ Parent ]
Well
I'm not very familiar with the senior Chafee but the younger Chafee had by far the most liberal record of and republican senator for his last several years in the senate.  I believe Jim Jeffords of Vermont was about as liberal when he was a republican senator but even Snowe and Speter didn't come close to being as liberal as Chafee.

[ Parent ]
Chafee the Younger
I wouldn't say that he was far to the left across the board, issue-wise, but from what I recall he was definitely more liberal on several social issues than some Senate Dems, being strongly pro-choice, for example. He was also fairly liberal on gay rights, I think.

Of course, he was also the sole Republican to vote against authorizing the Iraq war, as well.  


[ Parent ]
Decided to go back 10 years ago
As of 1999 the most liberal republicans in the Senate were (lowest score being most conservative):

Jeffords (VT) - 26%
Chafee (RI) - 32%
Specter (PA) - 39%
Collins (ME) - 49%
Snoew (ME) - 50%


[ Parent ]
This was using American Conservative Union ratings
Which is obviously a right-wing outfit.

[ Parent ]
Undoubtedly, he was a very liberal Republican
The only thing I'm questioning is whether he was among the most liberal Senators, period.

[ Parent ]
No way
There are loads of Dem Senators who were much more liberal.  Chafee's scores were actually only a bit to the left of people like Evan Bayh.  Though Chafee was obviously more liberal on social issues.

Funny thing I noticed when looking at the ACU ratings.  Mary Landeiru (LA) was basically a solid liberal for her first term in the Senate.  It was only recently that she shifted well right.  


[ Parent ]
Gay rights
John Chafee voted for DOMA, Lincoln Chafee supports gay marriage. I don't really know enough to compare them on other issues though. Either way it's probably going to be a long time before another Republican gets elected to senate in RI barring special circumstances.

[ Parent ]
Chaffee supported gay marriage
He was as far to the left on gay rights as can be.

[ Parent ]
He said he voted for George HW Bush though
And he was a Rhode Island Republican, that's the absolute best they would've gotten out of him. They should've taken what they had and been happy to have a Republican in Rhode Island.

Your go-to source for great sarcasm

[ Parent ]
Gee, how considerate of Charlie
Now, about the primary those Jewish voters will be voting in next summer. . .

Runoff for Atlanta Mayor is today
I haven't been following the race much at all, just thought I'd put that out there...

And by today, I mean tomorrow
Getting ahead of myself...

[ Parent ]
Hopefully SUSA polls it one last time
Their last poll had big movement for Reed with a 49-46 lead and most independents being AA.

[ Parent ]
As are runoffs in HD-58, HD-129, HD-141, and SD-35


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
UT-Sen: hits on the most popular issue of the cycle
The economy and health care may get most of the press, but Obama's horrible, horrible war policies are available to any Republican to take a shot at.

Staying in Iraq permanently, fighting in Afghanistan after every other invader has failed there, and raising taxes to do it... it's like a throbbing juglar to take aim at.  Unless you come out of it with Osama bin Laden's head on a stick, there aren't a dozen people in Utah who have a fervor to pay more taxes so Americans can die in Afghanistan.

It's a fantastic issue for a Republican to showcase.


Huh?
In poll after poll Americans (especially republicans) support spending more on "national defense" and wars rather than less.  I imagine in a red state like Utah the number if even higher.  

I don't agree with that.  Personally I think the defense budget should be cut by at least half and the ears in Afghanistan and Iraq ended within two years at most.  But it's hard to deny how ridiculously hawkish this country is on the whole.


[ Parent ]
You forgot the raising taxes part
There is absolutely no way that rank and file Republicans (or anyone for that matter) want their taxes raised to aimless wander around Afghanistan forever.

[ Parent ]
What tax are you referring to?
I am unaware of any specific tax enacted because of the wars.  Most of the war funding has added to the deficit, but has not caused specific taxes to be enacted.  And don't say the proposed "war tax" because we all know that is more or less grandstanding that will never become law.

[ Parent ]
We know that?
Where do you get that???  You can't seriously be saying we got some money in a tin cup somewhere that will allow us to accelerate the war in Afghanistan for free?

Every dollar spent isn't just "added to the deficit". It is paid for by higher taxes now and in the future.

And more to the point, the "war tax" is actually being discussed, regardless of what is enacted.  Opposing the Obama "war tax" is as big a win as a Republican candidate can have.


[ Parent ]
Simple math
How the hell do you think a war tax would pass congress?  Every republican will vote it down, as will almost every blue dog and probably many other dems.  I'd be surprised if it received 200 ayes much less 218.

[ Parent ]
Lugar already came out in favor
But again the point is an expansion of the war has to be paid for.  Opposing an expansion and the higher taxes it must require (now or in the future) is a perfect issue to run on as a Repbulcan.

[ Parent ]
Right...
this is a bogus argument.  Republicans from Reagan on out have essentially argued that money and deficits should not be an object when it comes to military spending.  Obama doesn't have to raise taxes to fund the war - and I'd love to see the 2012 GOP candidate argue that we need to cut defense spending and engage in a full pullout from Afghanistan.  A demon will smack me in the face with a snowball before that happens.

[ Parent ]
For pete's sake
"Obama doesn't have to raise taxes to fund the war"

How can you even type something like that?  Our economy has been destroyed by these wars.  We go deeper into credit card debt everyday because of them.  It's plainly obvious that there is no surplus to pay for these wars.  Taxes will be permanently higher for years because of Bush/Obama policies.


[ Parent ]
Careful, I see steam coming out your ears
I can type that because he doesn't.  He could just as easily cut or curtail spending elsewhere, or let the deficit grow higher than he originally planned (plenty of economists have concurred on this).  But this really isn't the place for that type of discussion.

[ Parent ]
Actually that statement is true
It's called deficits.  Yes the economy has been destroyed by endless wars, but taxes are a longterm thing.  We're talking about a federal government that CAN fun a deficit unlike individual states.  Taxes can and have been putoff for long periods of time.

[ Parent ]
They are called deficits
Not free money.

They have to be paid for eventually.  If your argument is not paying for it today is the same as not paying for it forever, that just isn't true.

If taxes aren't raised today, the a larger debt will have to be paid for later.  Right now we have obscenely high taxes because of Reagan's shitbag policies.  It is an absolute that more money spent requires more money taken in, now or fifty years from now, or both.


[ Parent ]
I don't disagree at all
I know deficits have to be paid eventually.  I'm just thinking like a republican here.  Republican voters by and large don't care about future generations.  They are completely self-absorbed and won't even consider raising taxes even when it's a necessity.    They'd rather just put it off as long as possible to let someone else pay for it in the future.  Actually they usually put it off while they are in power and force democrats to do the dirty work of raising taxes (see Clinton, 1993).  It's Reaganism in a nutshell as you mention.

[ Parent ]
Funny
Republicans cried that Obama's stimulus would place an "unnecessary burden that our grandchildren will have to pay." Of course they have cognitive dissonance when it comes to their own big spending.

Check out the 2010 California races (http://2010californiaracetracker.wetpaint.com) and help us take back Red California! (http://www.takebackredcalifornia.org)

[ Parent ]
They don't care about deficits
Never have and never will.  It's just a convenient excuse for republican to use right now in bashing thingsl ike health care reform, stimulus, etc.  When it comes to things the rightwing wants like wasteful defense spending the sky is the limit.  I know many republicans who honest to god don't consider military spending to be government spending.  Where they think the money for defense comes from I havn't the slightest idea.  

[ Parent ]
Chad's point is that
it doesn't have to be Obama that raises taxes, it can easily be done after him.  Which, from an electoral standpoint, mitigates the "have to raise politically damaging taxes" argument.  You can argue that it's a shitty policy if you want, but that's not for SSP.

[ Parent ]
Thanks
That was what I was getting at.  And republicans are usually the ones who pump up defense spending/deficits to ridiculous levels and leave democratic administrations to do the tax raising.  Clinton in 1993 was a good example.

[ Parent ]
Bush 41 actually started it
He was the first to raise taxes, which allowed a third party challenge in Ross Perot to come in and allow Clinton to take over.  Jude Wanniski, one of Reagan's top economists, actually outlined the strategy you spoke of in a memo back in 1974 when he argued that Republicans lose the tax argument because voters actually like government programs and will choose them over lower taxes.  So, he argued, just have both low taxes and government programs and let someone else foot the deficit.

[ Parent ]
But that point is completely irrelevant
It doesn't matter who raises the taxes to pay for a war expansion.  It just has to happen.

The point is running against the Obama policy that leads to higher taxes is a pure win for Republican because it is Obama's fault, and there are current proposals to raise taxes to pay for this now.

You have to think of it in a SSP context, not a historical one.  A Republican running right now can run against Obama's war policies because they require higher taxes.  It's a gift from God issue to be handed to Republicans.


[ Parent ]
No, it's entirely relevant
We were running this argument in 2002-2004, and it got us no where. Voters just don't punish politicians for future sins, no matter how definite they are. It's the fundamental flaw in our electoral system- elections are all about tomorrow, but we only base our decisions on yesterday. For better or worse, the message that current military action will force a future President to raise taxes, while true, is too attenuated to build a campaign around.

And of course, Republicans are ill-suited to deliver such a message, given their dependence on muscular foreign policies. Hell, if this ever became an issue- and it won't for the reasons above- it could be a wedge issue for the Republicans as much as a bad issue for Obama. After spending the last few months screaming at Obama to give McChrystal everything he wants, they'd have trouble turning around and saying it's a bad idea. That's why- even though you're just so certain it's a winning issue for them!- you're not gonna see anymore than a few primary challengers use it.


[ Parent ]
That's why insisting that healthcare be paid for
was a huge mistake.  

[ Parent ]
You're just deliberately missing the point
"Voters just don't punish politicians for future sins, no matter how definite they are"

Not the issue, nobody cares about that.

The issue is Republicans can now stand up and say "no new taxes for war".  Wheter any such tax exists sooner or later or when it gets paid for is totally irrelevant.  What matters is they have a pure win issue that they can run on, which they also happen to be right on.


[ Parent ]
Just because you repeat the same point
Doesn't make it true.  But you're convinced so it's pointless debating this further.

[ Parent ]
Someone else said it, thank you


[ Parent ]
Modest deficits don't have to be paid for, IF...
debt doesn't exceed some hypothetical level which hurt market confidence.

Just the promise of a solid backer (i.e. the feds) has been sufficient to this time to retain that confidence.

Yes, there is some point where deficits and the overall debt (as a portion of GDP) may become so large that confidence is lost. I do not know what that point is, or whether we are close to hitting that point. The recent banking crisis may be a alarm bell in that respect. If nothing else, it certainly is a danger to be aware of.

However, I do support Obey's idea of a supplemental war tax. I believe LBJ's refusal of a similar tax during Vietnam harmed the economy of the time.


[ Parent ]
What you're forgetting is inflation
Yes, it will have to be paid for eventually, but when "eventually" comes around the deficit might be worth less than what it is now

[ Parent ]
Think about it this way:
It's an outside-the-box argument. Ron Paul made the anti-war argument in the 2008 campaign, and while he didn't win any states, he does have a fervent following. It may well be that Chaffetz is seeking to gain that following, which could be larger in 3 years if things go to Hell in a big way in Afghanistan, with lots of American deaths.

[ Parent ]
The party is too pro-war for Paul
It's the reason Ron Paul has support in the GOP a mile deep but an inch thick.  Most republican I know like the guy on most issues other than war.  It's when he talks about 9/11, war and national defense that they disregard him.  We're talking about a party that LOVES war and LOVES massive defense spending.  Paul has maybe 10% of republican who love him and the other 90% think he's a cartoon character.

[ Parent ]
Speaking as one of the few Republican-voting, Rush-listening posters here...
A lot of Republicans have grown paranoid and uneasy with big business and globalization advocates after the various failures of the Bush administration, the economic meltdown, and the rise of Obama. There's a general suspicion that the two entities had some sinister connection to those bad things that happened in the 2000s. Hell, there are actually quite a few Republicans (not me) who think that the economic collapse was planned.

Chaffetz and Glenn Beck are ahead of the curve on this shift in conservative thought. I'd look for anti-war sentiments on the right to grow in the future, along with antipathy towards free trade and immigration.


[ Parent ]
Anti-free trade and anti-immigration
Are nowhere near anything new in the GOP.  Pat Robertson had been railing against Wall Street in his 1988 Presidential bid, and guys like Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo have been screaming about the dangers of free trade and globalization (which immigration falls under) since the 1990's.  Not to mention, Bush promised he wouldn't engage in nation-building at the 2000 debates.  All of this just seems like a rehash of an old, radical strain of Republican ideology.  Those positions didn't take hold in mainline conservatism then, and it probably won't now.

Jason Chaffetz is not a mainstream GOP politician, so we're really getting ahead of ourselves in thnking this may be a new paradigm for the GOP.  When some bigger names start taking this tone I'll look at it seriously.


[ Parent ]
Paleoconservatives
I'm just saying that such groups are ascendant within the GOP right now, not that they're new.

[ Parent ]
The next generation of Pat Buchanans!?!


[ Parent ]
Gotcha
But I think the fact that it's happened before means we should take its "ascendancy" in the GOP with a grain of salt.  It may be shocking to a lot of younger folks, but hard right-wing ideology also rose when Clinton became President.  Same stuff - crazy conspiracy theories, the rise of hard-right pundits, "patriot" groups that protested the government - all happened in the '90's.  Hell, it may have been worse, what with Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City all occuring during that time.

Point is, we've been on this carousel before, so we should wait until we see if this anti-globalization, anti-nation building sentiment plays out any differently than in the '90's.


[ Parent ]
IMO, you can take the anti-trade anti-immigration people
and keep them.  

[ Parent ]
Careful, a lot of anti-trade anti-immigration folks
are members of labor unions who feel threatened by low wage competition - whether it be from immigration or from overseas plants.

[ Parent ]
Insular populism really, really sickens me


[ Parent ]
Ya
In their case it's not xenophobia but rather just a reaction to jobs being outsourced or taken over by others.

[ Parent ]
Afghanistan presents an interesting issue
Most Republicans agree with the belief that we should escalate engagement in Afghanistan and most prominent GOPers took shots at Obama the last few months arguing just that.  It seems that their political calculation was that Obama would back out and they'd have an easy issue to hit him with.  Now he puts them in a bind, as opposing him on Afghanistan would really only reinforce the idea that they're only opposed to whatever he does, regardless of what it is.  It's not too dissimilar to what happened to Democrats in 2004, since Kerry opposed the war after initially supporting it, making it hard for him to articulate a clear position on what he would do differently (as advocating for a total pullout would have essentially been him admitting he was completely wrong to begin with, which is a political non-starter).  Granted, Kerry was very inelegant in arguing his position, but he had little space to work with.

If Obama's Afghanistan strategy fails and he eventally pulls out (although this is not the place to discuss the merits of his decision) then he can turn to voters and say "I did what my commanders asked me to do, we couldn't get the job done, but I made every effort to succeed," I'm not sure how that is a big, throbbing jugular.  The GOP's mainstream position has been to do what the military commanders say and to renew efforts to secure the country, which is exactly what Obama promised he would do as a candidate and is doing right now.  They could take a different stance, but then they can be accused of flip-flopping.  The only way it damages Obama long-term is if it drags on for too long with no real progress - that's when voters will get pissed and it will give cover for the GOP to carve out a new position ("we support the war but not the way it's being handled," ala Democrats in 2006).


[ Parent ]
Basically
Obama helped his standing with republicans (who hate him anyway) and decreased his standing with democrats (who may be even more discouraged and stay home in 2010) thanks to this decision for open-ended involvement in Afghanistan.  That isn't exactly a winning strategy for the midterms.

[ Parent ]
This decision isn't for the midterms
It's for 2012 and beyond.  If Obama pulled out of Afghanistan and went back on a key campaign promise, and if Afghanistan devolved into a huge pile of chaos, he would have a huge hole in his ship come 2012.  It would only reinforce the theme that Democrats can't be trusted on national defense, and it would give Republicans an easy attack on him (because it's not as if they'd have to re-enter Afghanistan once they regained power).  Moreover, it would make him look soft to independent voters, the very folks who booted Jimmy Carter out for his botching of the Iran hostage crisis.  It would only reinforce every negative stereotype the party has been trying to shuck for the last 30 years: wishy-washy, unable to keep campaign promises, and soft on national defense.  

[ Parent ]
Depends
1) I'm not sure how many Democrats will really be pissed about this. Surely, the online community is understandably unhappy, but the fact is, refocusing on Afghanistan isn't just what Obama ran on, but what the entire Democratic Party has run on since about 2005. That doesn't mean Dems WON'T be pissed about it; I just think the pictures kinda hazy.

2) Nothing succeeds like success. If the Afghanistan policy works, or fudges the numbers as well as the Iraq surge did, all will be forgiven, or forgotten, or whatever. And of course, the efficacy of such a policy is a discussion for another blog. :)


[ Parent ]
If Obama succeeds in Afghanistan
He will be remembered as one of the greatest Presidents of all time.  The "I took an 8 year war that was hopeless and saved it" storyline would be one for the history books, and if the situation improves markedly by 2012 he'd have a strong chance of kicking the living shit out of whoever the GOP nominates.  Even if the economy tanked he'd have one of the best military turnarounds in American history under his belt.  This, of course, is assuming that it works.  If he fails I see him taking damage, but the Republican Party won't be able to make much hay out of it as they'd have done the same thing, not to mention they were responsible for it being such a mess to begin with.

[ Parent ]
At the risk of being off-topic, what would constitute "success" in Afghanistan?
This is one of the most important things the President has to define and explain in his upcoming speech.

[ Parent ]
Success is whatever Obama and the GOP spin it as
and I have a feeling that whoever does the better job will wind up winning one of the largest political issues of our generation.  Democrats talk about Obama starting a permanent shift in power for Team Blue, this may well determine it.  

[ Parent ]
I think it helps President Obama with the "security mom" demographic
That group, reported by some, to have swung to Bush in '04 - historically Republican women, mainstays of suburban areas such as main line Philly.  

[ Parent ]
Giulliani can't possibly be beating Gillibrand
It's impossible. Not in New York. I refuse to believe it.

Why?
Have you not noticed Giuliani is incredibly popular in NY and no one knows Gillibrand?  

[ Parent ]
Incredibly popular?
Good one.  The guy made a complete ass of himself during his Presidential run by taking every far-right stand possible and leaving any potential democratic opponent with countless idiotic right-wing soundbytes.  

[ Parent ]
I agree, but the numbers are telling a different story...
Gillibrand's slightly upside down overall and Giuliani's very popular with NY Republicans, Independents, and about 30% of Democrats.

[ Parent ]
Gillibrand is tied to Paterson
which, whether it is fair or not, is going to hurt her.  The only thing voters know of her is that she was appointed by the most unpopular Governor in New york history, and he will be a deadweight on her until she can make a name for herself.  There's also some lingering resentment from NYC over her appointment which is carrying over into her approvals.  I do think this will work out though, if Cuomo jumps in and forces Paterson off the ticket for the general.

Rudy's high numbers are all about name recognition, but I cannot see him sustaining it.  His entire presidential bid had him running against New York and telling Republicans how much of a waste-ridden liberal cesspool it is, not to mention he reversed on all of the social positions that made him palatable to New Yorkers to begin with.  It would not take many ads to bring his numbers way down in NYC, which is the only reason why he's competitive with Gillibrand.  


[ Parent ]
That's part of it
    Although I think another reason is because she's being a little to complacent. She's been senator for almost a year now. I think it's time that she start's figuring out how to get those numbers up. I believe someone else suggested here that she start advertising. I agree with that. She needs to define herself before a Republican counterpart does it for her. Gillibrand has gotten very lucky in the sense that all the people that were talking about or planning to run in a primary against her, did not do so. Plus the fact that it looks like Pataki or Guilliani won't end up running. However that luck won't last forever if she does not get her poll numbers up.

[ Parent ]
How many NY voters paid attention to Guiliani in the primaries?
I suspect fewer than 5% remember the kind of a** he made of himself. But I have no real data, so I could be all wet there.

But if I'm right, it is fortunate that Guiliani doesn't seem to want to run for Senate.

However, if he does run, some of what he said during the '08 campaign could make for interesting media - ads and more -

introducing Rudy to NY voters in a different way. The Post and Daily News headlines would be drip drip with kryptonite on a daily basis on Rudy.


[ Parent ]
I think many more New Yorkers paid attention
It was heavily covered in all New York-area media.

[ Parent ]
Coverage != attention
just because it's on TV doesn't mean that people noticed. . . (with the possible exception on VP Biden's comment about a noun and a verb and some date).  

[ Parent ]
I don't think New Yorkers are really able to ignore Giuliani
much as many of us would like to. He's a very well-known and controversial former Mayor, and effectively, a celebrity.

[ Parent ]
Coverage != attention
just because it's on TV doesn't mean that people noticed. . . (with the possible exception on VP Biden's comment about a noun and a verb and some date).  

[ Parent ]
TheUnknown
Check this out:

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dp...

Curious to know what you and any other people who follow GA politics thinks about this.

Damaging in the long run?


Good looking lady
Glad she dumped the loser.

[ Parent ]
I was actually going to post that but decided against it.
Well, we're not going to win Richardson's seat period.  I don't know how much it will affect things on a macro level though, although I could see a coup emerge (which may keep David Ralston from running for GA-09 if he challenges Richardson again for the gavel).  I'm not sure how much anyone else could get tied to Richardson.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Seat
His seat is not a question, but the idea of another Speaker is interesting.

Everyone in the House seems to be coalescing around the Speaker, including the ones who backed Ralston. Eventually though something's gotta give.


[ Parent ]
What a sad, sleazy, pathetic situation


[ Parent ]
Elaine Marshall
Why does the DSCC keep acting like she isn't a serious candidate? Yes, her fundraising thus far sucks and the NC DNC establishment is pretty unpopular, but at least she's a statewide official. Surely she is better than some of the people that the DSCC is trying to entice into the race, like Cunningham.

nvm
there's a whole thread for NC-Sen, I'll post there. sorry


Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

Talk to your supporters, not tech support. Campaign Engine is the powerful, affordable Progressive Campaign Software.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

SSP Race Ratings

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox